Railways and Transport Safety Bill

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendment be now considered.
	Moved, That the Commons amendment be now considered.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF A LORDS AMENDMENT

[The page and line refer to HL Bill 53 as first printed for the Lords.]

LORDS AMENDMENT

10 After Clause 107, insert the following new clause—
	"THE NATIONAL TRAILS (1) In the interest of public health and safety, subsections (2) and (4) shall have effect.
	(2) The Secretary of State shall within one year from the coming into force of this enactment make a permanent Traffic Regulation Order to prohibit the use of non-essential mechanically propelled vehicles on the National Trails.
	(3) Non-essential mechanically propelled vehicles shall mean all such vehicles but shall not include those driven by individuals with an estate or interest in land adjoining the Trail or their lawful visitors or emergency vehicles.
	(4) A Traffic Regulation Order shall mean an order as defined in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c.27) and as subsequent amended."
	The Commons disagreed to the above amendment but proposed the following amendment in lieu thereof—
	10A Page 48, line 19, at end insert the following new clause—
	"TRAFFIC REGULATION ON LONG DISTANCE ROUTES The following shall be inserted after section 22A of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c.27) (traffic regulation for purpose of conserving natural beauty)—
	"22B TRAFFIC REGULATION ON LONG DISTANCE ROUTES (1) This section applies where the Secretary of State thinks that, because of the use of a long distance route by vehicular traffic, members of the public cannot safely and conveniently—
	(a) enjoy the amenities of any part of the route or of the area through which the route runs;
	(b) take advantage of opportunities for recreation in any part of that area;
	(c) study nature in any part of the area. (2) The Secretary of State may make an order preventing the use of the route or a specified part of the route—
	(a) by vehicular traffic, or
	(b) by vehicular traffic of a specified kind. (3) An order under this section may have effect only in relation to a long distance route which is, or in so far as it is, in England.
	(4) An order under this section shall be treated for all purposes as if it were a traffic regulation order made by the Secretary of State in relation to a road for which he is the traffic authority (and, in particular, any provision of this Act about the making or effect of such an order shall apply)."."

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 10, to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10A in lieu thereof.
	I was very sorry to have to resist Amendment No. 10, which was put forward on a previous occasion. That was not because we disagreed about the dreadful state of the Ridgeway, in particular, among our national trails, but fundamentally because it was an issue of human rights. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, who I do not believe is in his place, asked me whether it was a human right to drive a motorbike along a country path. That was not the issue at all; it was that, if one extinguishes existing rights, then it is a human right to have one's objections heard and, if necessary, for an independent public inquiry to take place. That was not provided for in the amendment.
	Having said that, I recognise, and sympathise with, the strongly held views about the inconvenience, annoyance and, indeed, danger to users on foot and others, the damage to the surface of parts of the Ridgeway and the potential dangers created as a result of recreational vehicle use on that route. By "recreational vehicles", I really mean motorbikes and four-wheel drives.
	The Countryside Agency is already drawing up a business plan for the Ridgeway to address those problems. The plan envisages working with local authorities to deliver improvements to the Ridgeway. That will involve selective use of traffic regulation orders in combination with repairs to parts of the Ridgeway that have been damaged. Funding for that work will be provided by the agency as well as by local authorities.
	In responding to the concerns raised in this House, today the Government have also introduced their own amendment to the Bill that would give the Secretary of State a new power. That power would enable the Secretary of State to make a traffic regulation order preventing the use of the Ridgeway or any other long-distance route by all vehicular traffic, or vehicular traffic of a specified kind, where he believes that such use means that the route cannot be safely or conveniently used by members of the public for the purpose of enjoying the amenity. It will enable the Secretary of State to make a permanent traffic regulation order for this purpose.
	Temporary traffic regulation orders made under Section 14 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 are used in situations where it is necessary to prohibit or restrict traffic for a relatively short period of time. The purposes for which temporary orders may be used are when works are carried out on or near a road and there is the likelihood of danger to the public or serious damage to a road or to enable litter clearing or cleaning. Clearly, that is not the problem that we are addressing now.
	The normal procedures for making a permanent traffic regulation order would apply. That means allowing an opportunity for objections and, if necessary, a public inquiry. The previous amendment would not have provided for that and therefore it would have been at risk of breaching the European Convention on Human Rights.
	We want to give the Countryside Agency's management plan for the Ridgeway a chance. But if the strategy of working with the local authorities does not produce results in the next 12 months, then the Government will consider using the new power given by this amendment in order to promote a traffic regulation order banning non-essential motorised vehicles from the whole length of the Ridgeway.
	Moved, That the House do not insist on their Amendment No. 10, to which the Commons have disagreed, but do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10A in lieu thereof.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the very great interest that he has taken in this issue throughout the stages of the Bill. I am also grateful to noble Lords who supported me on previous amendments during the Bill's proceedings. I am far more interested in outcome than process. Therefore, I am happy that we seem to have found a way that satisfies my concerns, those of noble Lords who supported me and, most importantly, those of the users of the Ridgeway and routes like it who have found their quiet enjoyment of the routes completely ruined. Therefore, I am happy for my amendment to be withdrawn and for the Government's amendment, as agreed by the Commons, to be moved forward.
	I want to make two brief points. My experiences in Suffolk—in the practical sense of trying to manage this kind of route—do not leave me feeling wholly optimistic about the prospects for voluntary management and for the management plan. However, I am entirely happy that it should be given a year to work. But I put the noble Lord on notice that I believe that the pressure on the Government to bring forward a traffic regulation order will be considerable if there is not a significant improvement on the Ridgeway.
	In addition, and in the interests of what one might consider pushing my luck, perhaps I may also ask the noble Lord whether the Government would consider examining the whole issue of traffic regulation orders, which are very bureaucratic, cumbersome and difficult to use. If the processes could be streamlined without in any way subverting the interests of natural justice and public consultation, then I believe that local authorities and the people they represent would be very grateful.

Lord Luke: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches, I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, has said about this amendment. My noble friend Lord Astor could not be in his place today, but I am sure he would agree with me that the Minister has shown that the Government have good intentions on this matter. If the countryside agencies work, the matter will be on its way towards a solution. If they do not, I am sure that your Lordships will hear about it promptly from my noble friend.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment and to congratulate my noble friend on tabling it. It certainly covers my concerns. I am grateful to my noble friend for all the work that he has done with the noble Baroness, Lady Scott.
	I have one comment on the phrase "the Secretary of State thinks" in the first line of new Section 22B. I know that Secretaries of State always think, but I suggest that "think" is a slightly odd word. Perhaps "consider" would have been a better word. Presumably, however, other people will be able in the usual way to influence the Secretary of State's thought process and all will be well.

Lord Bridges: My Lords, before the Minister replies, perhaps I may ask him whether he can enlighten us on one matter. I am sure that this is a very helpful initiative by the Government. However, I recall the debate that we had during the passage of the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill on the question of bridle-ways, which were also being used in a similar way, and I wonder whether it would be possible for the helpful procedure now before us to be used to correct injustices and mistakes that occur in the use of those bridle-ways by similar recreational vehicles?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I shall take the points in reverse order and respond first to the noble Lord, Lord Bridges. The noble Lord will know that from the beginning of this month we have been implementing provisions in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act to convert roads used as public paths, which happen to constitute about 3 per cent of the Ridgeway, into restricted byways from which vehicular traffic will be prohibited. If the noble Lord is aware of any particular case in which the regulations are being flouted—I am not—I should be grateful if he would write to me so that we can deal with it.
	On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, we are happy to engage parliamentary counsel who use ordinary English—what I would call demotic English—in the drafting of the Bill. I believe that "think" says what it means and is the right word to use, rather than "is of the opinion" or some more pompous phrase.
	I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Luke, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, for their contributions. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, raised the additional point about traffic regulation orders in a more general sense. As I am sure she is aware, we have in preparation a traffic management Bill, of which traffic regulation orders will form a part, and we shall have an opportunity to debate that matter.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government Bill

Report received.
	Clause 94 [Power to charge for discretionary services]:

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 1:
	Page 51, line 18, leave out subsection (3).

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, we consider that the new power to charge for discretionary services is important, and we welcome it. In my county of Essex, we are keen to make the most of this new freedom to maintain as many of our discretionary services as possible. However, we are disappointed to find that, having been granted this freedom, local authorities will have their hands tied by the unnecessary caveat of having to ensure that the income from charges for a service does not exceed the cost of its provision.
	We are concerned that this restriction will prevent local authorities improving the quality of services that they provide. We understand that the power is to be exercised primarily to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of our communities and is not to be seen as a money spinner. That is fine. However, for local authorities to be able to provide a service and raise their standards of service provision, it is clear that they may on occasions want to over-recover their costs in order to invest in service improvements. To prevent them doing so is likely to lead to a gradual deterioration of service. It seems to me to be a topsy-turvy world in which the instruction that we send out to local authority managers is, "You must not make a profit. By all means make a loss, but do not make a profit".
	In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, mentioned the dangers of allowing authorities to enter into an unrestricted commercial activity. He did not say what those dangers were. As the leader of an authority under financial pressure, I believe that the key danger is that the service would lose money, which would put pressure elsewhere on the authority's budget. From my perspective, the danger of authorities making a profit is a somewhat lesser concern.
	The amendment does nothing to affect the scope of powers to charge for discretionary services. That is not the issue. The issue is whether a local authority providing a service that it does not need to provide should be able to charge what the market is happy to pay for that service. The Minister says that it should not be allowed to do so. I say that in principle it should. If the only reason standing in the way of that is the effect that it might have on powers elsewhere in the Bill—that is what the Minister said in the other place—it surely cannot be beyond the wit of the Minister and his civil servants to work out a way of resolving the problem. I am also concerned that insisting that local authorities enter local markets on a non-commercial basis will distort local markets and will not be welcomed by local businesses.
	I appreciate that the Minister will probably take the view that the purpose of these powers is to enable local authorities to step in to provide services where the local market cannot or will not do so. In many cases, that may be true. But should we not also see these powers as providing an opportunity to stimulate local markets? That would not have the effect of a large, uncommercial player taking part.
	As well as the principled objections we have to this measure, we are also concerned about how it will operate in practice. What will happen if the calculations go slightly wrong and against all the odds local authorities make a slight profit on the discretionary services? We might have to make adjustments the following year to the pricing structure—perhaps reducing charges—but that might only have the effect of leading to more people taking up the service and an even higher profit. I suppose that we could consider that as a way of providing the service. Perhaps local authorities may be carrying out the work too efficiently. Therefore, we could try to meet the Government's requirements by increasing our cost base. It seems to me that the provision is wrong in principle and difficult to police in practice. I hope that the Minister will think again. I beg to move.

Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have to tell the House that if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 2.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, Amendment No. 2 stands in my name, and I would be delighted if it were to be pre-empted by the deletion of subsection (3). My amendment is less ambitious. While I fully agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said, if the subsection is retained, I am concerned about a point in it.
	In Grand Committee I said that I wondered whether a local authority would be caught out—to use demotic language—if its income slightly exceeded its costs. That was because of the very precise and technical point of the local authority's vires—less demotic—or its powers. If a local authority were to be challenged on the basis that income, even taking a number of years together, was just a little over its costs, what would be the position?
	I accept that it would be difficult for all income to be attributed to a particular charging activity. If the Government seek to take that approach, I understand why they have done so in that way. It does not seem to me that what is being done addresses the dangers of the challenge on the ultra vires basis. Although I do not for a moment support some of the activities that happened in the 1980s that led to the cases in regard to what were local authorities' powers, I am alert to the dangers that they articulated at some length.
	My amendment seeks to provide that the income from charges does not significantly exceed the cost of provision—I used different language at the last stage. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said in Grand Committee:
	"I would hate to think that a local authority would fall foul of some crazy interpretation of the Bill and that because its costs turned out to be a little lower than it thought and it made a profit of a quid, that nullified the whole exercise . . . Obviously, if the noble Baroness tables such an amendment I will be happy to give her a considered response to it".—[Official Report, 17/6/03; col. GC 262.]
	I have tabled this amendment in order to hear the Minister's considered response.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Good morning, my Lords. What a wonderful day—back on local government finance! With Amendment No. 1, we have a choice between the ambitious and the less ambitious. I do not favour either of the approaches, although I entirely understand them. Thinking back to the time when I led my local authority, we could have done with some more flexibility in terms of costs and charges. I can understand where noble Lords are coming from in this regard.
	Clause 94 is designed to allow authorities to cover the costs of providing discretionary services, but not to provide a new source of income, a new profit line. Amendment No. 1 understandably seeks to remove part of the clause, the part designed to ensure that authorities do not profit from the provision of discretionary services.
	In Clause 94 the costs of provision are deliberately not defined so as to give authorities the maximum amount of discretion and flexibility in its interpretation, both now and in the future. We have built in flexibility and it is guaranteed in the clause as it is written. Our belief is that authorities should be enabled and free to establish their own robust methodology for assessing the costs of providing a discretionary service.
	I believe that that is the way it should be left. If we become overly prescriptive—that was our original intention—and if we over-regulate we shall create more of a problem for ourselves. We want the flexibility; that is what we have tried to achieve in the way in which the clause is designed. I suggest to noble Lords that it is probably best left that way. If the determination is made locally, and if the assessment is made locally, I am sure that in the localities the local authorities will exercise their powers and duties sensibly.
	Amendment No. 2 differs as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, explained. She has put the word "significantly" into the script. Our problem with that is that it is open to very variable interpretation. It is hard to see what it would mean and what it adds in terms of the clause. That is why we have adopted the formulation,
	"taking one financial year with another",
	because we recognise that one cannot have an exact balancing act in organising costs. I believe that to add the word "significantly" would raise the possibility that year in, year out best value authorities could make a profit from charges for discretionary services without any real gain being made in terms of service quality.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, suggested that local authorities need an extra bit of up-front income generation to ensure that they do not run at a loss or there is not a deterioration in service. I do not believe that that will happen. My belief is that there is already sufficient flexibility. I say that because I want it to be understood by the local authorities. I think that what we have will work. Obviously, it is something that we shall watch for carefully in the future.
	We do not want to blur the line between trading and charging. We are clear that we want trading to be achieved through companies, but we want to give local authorities the ability to charge for discretionary services where they wish and where there is no current power or current prohibition. That is why I believe that we should stick with what, ultimately, is quite sensitive wording in the Bill.
	Having heard those words of encouragement, I hope that the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will feel happy to withdraw their amendments. I believe that we have the situation about right. The freedoms and flexibilities that we have provided up front will give the local authorities the scope and the freedom to work well in that area.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, is the Minister able to answer my precise question about vires, which I also raised at the previous stage?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness. I should have had an answer for her at the Dispatch Box, but I have not. I shall undertake to ensure that she receives a more precise answer than I can honestly give her today. It would be wrong of me to answer her now as the noble Baroness deserves a more precise response.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comments. This is a very difficult area. As noble Lords are aware, I have considerable practice and involvement in this area at this moment. In Committee stage I mentioned, and I shall mention it now, an archaeological team working in Colchester, Essex, one of the oldest towns in the country, which is covered in archaeological sites. Every time a new building is built another site is found. The county council is in danger of having to give up its service in that regard because it is a discretionary service and the priority is care of the elderly, children's services, schools and so on. If one could use those services one would probably keep them.
	Although I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said, he did not give us enough encouragement in the area of work that local authorities carry out very well, and local authorities are in danger of having to give up that work because of the pressure on finances. We need to look at the wording again, because the Minister suggested that the wording left enough flexibility for local authorities to perhaps receive enough back from those services to continue them. I shall look at that wording again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but reserve the right to return to it at Third Reading.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
	Clause 95 [Power to disapply section 94(1)]:

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 3:
	Page 52, line 7, leave out sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii).

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, Clause 95 allows the "appropriate person"—I imagine the Secretary of State or the National Assembly—to disapply Section 94(1) either for "particular descriptions" of authority or with regard to a particular service by all best value authorities; or by particular best value authorities or particular descriptions of best value authorities. I seek to remove the second and third of those from the Bill.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said in Grand Committee that he was sure that I would acknowledge that the power to disapply, which I do acknowledge is a reserve power that the Government hope will not be used, was needed in case the power to charge for discretionary services, under Clause 94, was misused or abused. I then asked why it was necessary to have the power to disapply if Clause 94(3), which we have just debated, was retained in the Bill. That has clear restrictions. I tabled the amendment, hoping that the Government could answer why it is necessary to have a discriminatory power to disapply—albeit a discretionary one—but which allows them to discriminate between best authorities if the power is limited in the way that Clause 94(3) requires. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I understand the spirit behind the moving of this amendment and I shall try to explain further why it is unacceptable. The power in Clause 95 is a reserve power and one that we expect to use only in exceptional circumstances. It means that the Government could take action if a single authority or a number of authorities were to misuse the power to charge, and the power to disapply could be applied to one particular discretionary service or to all discretionary services of one or more authorities.
	I explained in Committee on 17th June in Hansard, col. GC 264, that Clause 95 might be of use where it became clear that an authority was not complying with the duty in Clause 94 to ensure that,
	"taking one financial year with another, the income from charges . . . does not exceed the costs of provision".
	If the result was that the authority was effectively undertaking unauthorised trading activities, Clause 95 would enable the general power to charge to be withdrawn from that particular authority. But if we were to accept the amendment we would only be able to withdraw the power to charge in relation to all discretionary services of that authority, or in relation to a particular discretionary service provided by all authorities.
	We want to ensure that best value authorities have the freedom and flexibility to charge for discretionary services if they choose to do so, but we need some flexibility and that is why we have proposed this power for exceptional cases. It would enable us to be very selective so as not to penalise other authorities that were playing by the rules—and indeed other parts of the offending authority which were using the new power properly. It is therefore a precise tool which can be brought to bear if one small part on an authority with a particular discretionary service is not playing the game. It is right that we have that power. The noble Baroness would probably accept that if, in an area where there were competing local authorities, an authority decided that it wanted to exploit the opportunity provided by the marketplace to provide a service, and then did not play by the rules, one would have to accept that that would be wrong. We would want the power to make a critical intervention where an authority was stepping out of line.
	However, we wish overall to allow best value authorities, and the way in which they provide those services, to operate with the maximum freedom and flexibility. We shall use this power with great care and caution.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. At earlier stages of the Bill there were a number of provisions which began to be described as hackneyed provisions, and this is perhaps another example. It raises an interesting point. We are told that in order to ensure that another provision of the Bill is not violated, the Government need this power to disapply that provision. It opens up questions as to what all the other parts of the Bill which cannot be disapplied might mean, what the sanctions might be and what the force of those provisions might be. The Government are saying that the only—or perhaps, to be fair, the best—way that they can ensure that a provision of the very same piece of legislation is observed is by disapplying it. That is a major issue, which perhaps I am not qualified to expand on, and one that is certainly not appropriate to examine now, although the matter is serious. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 4:
	After Clause 100, insert the following new clause—
	"FREEDOM AND FLEXIBILITY (1) The powers in this Act shall be exercised by the Secretary of State in accordance with a general duty to increase the freedom and flexibility of operation of any local authority that has been assessed as "excellent" or "good" in its most recent comprehensive performance assessment.
	(2) When issuing any regulations or directions under this Act or the Local Government Act 1988 (c. 9) or the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (c. 14) that he intends to apply to a local authority or local authorities that have been placed in the top two tiers of classification in accordance with the provisions set out in section 100 of this Act, the Secretary of State shall at the same time publish a statement explaining how the regulation or direction concerned will increase the freedom and flexibility of such authorities and in what way it will devolve decision-making to local level. (3) In exercising powers to make an order under section 101 the Secretary of State must have regard to subsections (1) and (2) above.
	(4) The Secretary of State shall, in accordance with the classifications provided for in section 100, ensure that the following reductions in inspection activity for all inspectorates are made so that—
	(a) for authorities in the top tier of classification there shall be no external inspections during the period of the order made in section 100(4), and
	(b) for authorities in the next tier of classification there shall be a reduction in inspections of at least 50 per cent during the period of the order made in section 100(4). (5) Regulations made under Sections 11 and 26 of this Act shall not apply to any authority that has been placed in the top two tiers of classification in accordance with the provisions set out in section 100, except with the prior agreement of the local authority concerned.
	(6) In section 11 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (local authority executives), after subsection (5) there is inserted—
	(5A) The duty under this section does not apply to authorities that are classified under section 100 of the Local Government Act 2003 in the top two tiers of performance."

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, in introducing this new clause, we are trying to establish in the Bill where the comprehensive performance assessment should stand given that it is a major plank of the Government's local government policy.
	When the Government introduced the comprehensive performance assessment they said that it—I shall call it the CPA—would be the vehicle for delivering freedoms and flexibilities to local authorities. When they introduced local public service agreements they said that PSAs would be the vehicles for delivering freedoms and flexibilities to local authorities. When the Government introduced the beacon councils scheme, they said that they would be the vehicle for introducing freedoms and flexibilities for local authorities.
	If there is scepticism on this side of the House about the Government's promises of freedoms and flexibilities, it is the product of experience rather than ideology. If distinguishing between service providers on the basis of their ability to deliver the goods is a central plank of the Government's policy for public services—as seems to be the case—then the introduction of a clear statutory commitment on freedoms and flexibilities for local authorities should be an important component of that strategy. It would be welcomed in local government as a statement of the Government's good intentions.
	In addition to the general principle set out in the amendment that would give real flesh to the Government's public utterances on freedoms and flexibilities, I have suggested a number of areas on which a freedoms and flexibilities clause could bite. First, we should remember that the Government first introduced the CPA on the back of a promise that it would lead to an overall reduction in inspection activity. It is on that basis that local authorities have engaged with the process. However, there are some worrying reports that although the Audit Commission may be willing to play ball, other inspectors—Ofsted, SSI—are perhaps less willing to reduce their inspection activity.
	That may or may not be true. The key point is that there should be a statutory agreement on the level of reduction in inspection activity for each class of authority. That would send a powerful signal from the Government to the local authority community that they really do mean business and will compel inspectors to comply with their targets.
	Setting statutory targets for reductions in inspection activity does not mean a less flexible system. It would still be possible to tailor individual inspection programmes to the needs of individual authorities. It does mean, however, that authorities will know in advance exactly how much inspection activity they can expect in the medium term. That would aid the budgetary stability and forward planning processes for local authorities and would be welcomed.
	Secondly, the amendment would remove the power of the Secretary of State to make regulations binding good and excellent authorities on the use of capital receipts and on minimal levels of reserves. As other amendments will demonstrate, we are opposed to these provisions on principle, but find them particularly objectionable in relation to authorities that have been classified as good or excellent.
	Thirdly, the amendment would allow those authorities that have been classified as good or excellent to determine for themselves whether they want to continue to operate under the new executive structures set out in the Local Government Act 2000. If they choose not to be bound by those provisions, then they would be subject to the laws governing executive structures that existed prior to the 2000 Act.
	The purpose of the provision is not to suggest that one form of executive structure is better than another. It is not about turning the clock back. The amendment is about choice. It is about providing good or excellent authorities with the power to determine for themselves their internal governance structures.
	Why might the Government resist choice? I do not want to put words into Ministers' mouths, but I foresee that the Government might claim that it is not helpful for authorities to revisit their executive structures; that this might cause unnecessary upheaval when an authority should be concentrating on service delivery. Funnily enough, that is precisely why we are opposed to the creation of elected regional assemblies and the reconstitution of the whole local government structure beneath the region. So I do not disagree with the Minister on that.
	The authorities themselves, it might be argued, have benefited axiomatically from these executive structures—after all, they are good or excellent. Why then change a winning formula? I would not disagree with that. I would simply say that it is for good and excellent authorities to judge these things for themselves. They are in a position genuinely to consider the costs and benefits of changing their executive structures. The point is whether the Government trust local government. Do they trust local government to judge for itself whether its current executive structure or a committee-based structure is the right way forward?
	I think that the Government, with their belief in freedoms and flexibilities, must welcome this helpful amendment that gives flesh to so many of the things they have promised over the past few years. I hope Ministers will look favourably on the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Hanningfield, which stands in both our names. The Bill has been heralded as the Bill of freedom and flexibility. Those two words are mentioned in almost every second breath. It has been hard to find during the proceedings on the Bill—the Committee stage was held off the Floor of the House—where those freedoms and flexibilities are. So the purpose of the amendment is to try to pick out some of those areas where the excellent and good councils in the performance assessments might be able to find some freedom and flexibility. My noble friend Lord Hanningfield has described those very well.
	It would be helpful for local government to have those issues put together in one statutory clause. The inspection regimes have caused a great deal of angst; and that angst has not necessarily produced any very sensible or useful results. There have been far too many inspections. Most people now accept that that was the situation. I have always thought it absurd for the Government to be laying down from the centre exactly and definitively how local authorities should run themselves and how they should make their decisions. It is my belief that what has happened and what is happening is that we are making local government unattractive, except to the very few at the top who have a job to do and a job to lead. If we are not careful we will end up having to advertise for councillors who can perform specific roles rather than being generic.
	I support my noble friend Lord Hanningfield. I very much hope that the Minister will receive the amendment sympathetically.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it seems to us that the Conservatives have bought into the Government's notion of earned autonomy for local government. We on these Benches have made it clear on many occasions that we believe local authorities should be treated as inherently autonomous. I have said before—I do not want to go through the matter at great length—that Audit Commission review can be very helpful. I have experienced it being helpful. But the inspection regime which is now in place and to which the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have referred—the inspections are often carried out by people who do not know as much about the subject as one might like to think they should and, indeed, who sometimes do not know as much as those who actually deliver the service—has got quite out of hand.
	Categorisation is quite a different matter. The Government think that outside assessment, other than by the electorate, is a driver for councillors and officers. I do not think that that brings job satisfaction, but that doing the job well does. I really fear that the route which the Government are taking will mean that it will become a self-fulfilling prophesy; that one looks at the assessment through the eyes of other people who perhaps are not doing the job well for its own sake.
	We do not support the Government's approach, which is more or less, "Here is a freedom provided you are good boys and girls". But, at least, the Bill as drafted gives freedoms which are not necessarily confined to those at the top of the class. Some of the powers to disapply are discretionary powers. We have heard throughout from the Government that they hope in many cases not to use them.
	It seems to us that the amendment would consolidate rather than ease the distinctions. It frankly does not make Sections 11 and 26—I share the distaste for those—any more palatable. I find the suggestion of disapplying Section 11 of the Local Government Act 2000 curious; that is, disapplying the duty—as I read it—to put in place an executive scrutiny structure which is one of the models provided by Section 11. We had considerable criticisms of that Act as it was passing through the House. Indeed, I was able at the final stage to persuade the Government to exempt small authorities from the provision. Saying that is probably enough to confirm that we do not like Section 11 of the 2000 Act any more than the others that are referred to. However, we do not feel that this amendment is the solution to the problem. If anything, as I say, it would consolidate and not relieve what we see as a very real issue and difficulty inherent in the Government's approach. I am afraid we could not support the amendment.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this amendment is a curious and interesting one in terms of debate about the general direction of local government—where it should go, the nature of its leadership, how it works, its relation with central government and the degree of deregulation that should take place. I am intrigued by the amendment. I should like to congratulate noble Lords opposite because they have bought into what the Government are trying to achieve. I can see that they are trying to exercise political imagination in extending where we are going, though not in all regards. It is a useful contribution to what I genuinely believe to be a very important debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has seen that. This has moved the debate on. I congratulate the noble Lords opposite for having seized that opportunity.
	The focus of the amendment is on the best performing authorities. They are important, but I should make clear to your Lordships' House that greater freedom for all authorities is central to the approach in this Bill. Much of this additional freedom to charge for discretionary services and the introduction of the new prudential regime for capital finance will be available to all authorities. Many of the burdens that we are removing, whether through this Bill or in other ways, will be removed for all authorities. In this we are going a great deal further than some of the more recent converts on the Benches opposite thought we would go and perhaps at an earlier stage in the debate, were prepared to go themselves. So I am grateful to the Opposition for joining in the discussion.
	We do see the need, in some cases, to be able to take account of capacity of authorities in deciding whether to provide an additional flexibility. That is why we are providing higher performing authorities with further substantial freedoms. Our commitment to greater freedom for all authorities in order to remove barriers to improvement, and for higher performers to give them the opportunity to do more is absolutely clear.
	I ought to turn to the amendments in more detail. The first amendment seeks to impose a requirement that everything that we do in exercising powers under the Bill should be directed at increasing the freedom of the best authorities. Secondly, it seeks to write into statute a rather disparate wish list that the noble Lords opposite have put together to exempt good and excellent councils from certain requirements. As far as concerns the first point, I have already set out our commitment to greater freedom, but it seems to me that the proposal is fundamentally flawed. I am not sure that I understand what a general duty to increase freedom and flexibility would actually mean in practice. Noble Lords opposite might want to flesh this out in more detail. It can only be given effect by specific policies and decisions of the kind that we have set out, many of which are included in this Bill. The only point on which I am certain is that it would be likely to create absolute confusion about the use of powers under the Bill.
	As an ex-leader of an authority, I have some sneaking sympathy with what I take to be the basic point that underlies another part of the amendment—looking at how regulation affects freedom of operation for authorities. We agree that there is a need to look at the way in which government engage with local authorities, particularly authorities that are performing well. Being more refined in our approach and seeking a more variegated engagement depending on their performance across different service areas is indeed something that we are seeking to develop. However, I do not think this is well served by asking the Secretary of State to produce in each case some kind of certification that the use of a regulation-making power will increase freedom and flexibility. This seems like the long hand of centralism gone mad. In practice it would be inoperable as I suspect the promoters of this amendment are well aware. The way forward here is to strengthen and deepen what we have been doing—less control over process for authorities, more of a focus on outcomes, more freedom about how to achieve them and support and engagement that is proportionate to the performance of the authority. I do not believe that can be quantified and written into statute.
	I wish to turn briefly to the second set of issues. On inspection, it is indeed our policy that the very best authorities should have a holiday from most inspection activity and that good authorities should see the level of inspections cut by at least a quarter. But the duties under which inspectorates operate preclude this being written into law even were that a sensible approach in the first place. We cannot write into legislation an absolute ban on all inspection activity. Excellent councils are clear that in some cases inspection may be required. Take for example the significant concern of serious child abuse. Inspectorates also have statutory obligations to inspect certain functions, such as residential care homes and day nurseries, as part of their registration process. Our policy on reducing inspection activity is clear and we shall shortly be making announcements on what has been achieved to date. Good progress is being made on working with the inspectorates under a shared commitment to co-ordinated and proportionate inspection.
	On the powers that we have to make regulations about the use of capital receipts in Clause 11, this amendment would exempt certain classes of authorities from the requirement to contribute to the redistribution mechanism that underpins housing investment in this country. As I have made abundantly clear in earlier debates, it is a fundamental principle of local government finance that resources are allocated in line with need. Anything else would be irresponsible. I simply do not accept that some authorities should have significantly more resources to spend than others, regardless of the condition of their stock or their other housing needs. This proposal is neither fair nor logical. It could lead to either higher taxes or a reduction in government funding for the most needy authorities. I doubt whether your Lordships would find that outcome acceptable.
	On the power under Clause 26 to set minimum reserves, we have set out the very limited circumstances in which we would seek to use that power. I hope that no authority in the top tiers would be a candidate for a statutory minimum. But we have also made clear the very great importance that we attach to sound finances in the local authority sector. The new freedoms and flexibilities that we are giving re-emphasise the need for a sound financial base on which to operate them. If an authority in one of the top tiers for any reason neglected the need for adequate reserves we would not want to be deprived of the means of setting that right.
	Finally we have that old bugbear about allowing authorities in the top two performance categories to opt out of the requirement for executive arrangements. We have heard that the Liberal Democrats do not like Clause 11. That is clear from the way they performed in local government. I respect their different viewpoint. The purpose of requiring authorities to have a cabinet executive or alternative form of political management arrangements for smaller councils is well recorded. Our commitment is to maintain this reform, and to promote efficient, transparent, and accountable decision-making.
	We believe that the current arrangements are working very well. We set a target of all authorities having their new form of political management arrangement in place by the end of last year. We met this, primarily because of a lot of hard work by authorities. To suggest unravelling the process, even if only for highly performing authorities, would signal that that hard work was in vain and would undermine our determination and that of well led Conservative, Liberal Democrat, Labour and Independent authorities. It would also undermine the shared and collective recognition of the need for good quality, well understood and transparent leadership in local authorities, something which I thought had become a commonly accepted value and was widely supported.
	What appears to underlie this amendment is the clear view of the Benches opposite that political management arrangements are in some way a burden on authorities from which they need to be freed. I take the contrary view. The new system provides councils with exactly the kind of flexibility they need to sharpen up leadership and delivery, and to be properly held to account. Indeed, the irony of the position adopted by the Opposition is this: certainly in my time in local government I constantly encountered Conservative council leaders who said, "If only I had the freedom as a leader to act more decisively and authoritatively, I could do so much more for my authority". We have now provided the framework for that kind of dynamic leader to enjoy the freedom to get on with the job, because that is what people want their leaders of local authorities to do.
	I believe that this amendment, although well intentioned, does not add in a sensible way to the freedoms package that we have developed and put in place. Nor do I think it would add anything to the reforms that we have set in train over the past three or four years. The amendment is useful because it demonstrates a recognition that the world of local government has moved on. I congratulate the movers on that recognition and I am pleased to see that they are now beginning to catch up with the general drift of the Government's thinking.
	I hope that, having heard my encouraging words on some of this, noble Lords opposite will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I have listened with interest to what the Minister had to say about our proposed new clause. As a past leader of a local authority himself, he knows very well how local government operates. I would not say that noble Lords are converts—to repeat the word used by the noble Lord at one stage—to the Government's policy on local government, but we are realistic. We have before us a piece of legislation that we are trying to improve. This amendment therefore seeks to improve the Bill which, in one way or another, I am sure will shortly become the law of the land.
	I, along with others, do not like comprehensive performance assessments any more than does the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but we have them and we can see which authorities are designated as good or excellent. However, I think we would all agree that the subjective judgments in this area are not all that we would desire. However, we have comprehensive performance assessments and the Government talk consistently about those authorities enjoying greater freedoms and flexibility. That has been a theme running through the legislation, which is why we felt very strongly that the theme should be brought together in a single new clause.
	The most important element of the assessment is the inspection. Over the past five or six years of Labour government we have seen a consistent and continuing growth of inspections. Now literally hundreds of millions of pounds are spent on inspections, which is money that we would rather see spent on services for children, the elderly and schools. We are facing so many problems with regard to school budgets that it would be much better if some of the enormous sums being spent on inspections were directed towards school budgets. The amendment would tie into the legislation a theme of reduction of inspection.
	I was interested to hear the noble Lord remark that he thought the best authorities might see a 25 per cent reduction in inspections, although until today there has been talk of a reduction of around 50 per cent. This is an extremely important issue.
	I read with interest what was said by the Prime Minister last weekend. He commented that he was keen to take Labour policy forward on the delivery of services by imposing fewer targets, carrying out fewer inspections and thus spending more money on the services themselves. This amendment would help in that process by enabling the Government, in their dealings with local government, to provide greater freedoms. Although there were some thoughtful words from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, we did not hear all that we wanted to hear.
	I turn now to the structure of local government in this country. It is quite absurd that we have to retain such a totally rigid structure for local government. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned that there was a clause to exempt, but that applies only to very small district authorities which do not have to make provision in many service areas. By contrast, large authorities must have 10 cabinet members; they cannot have 11 or 12, although for larger authorities it would be much better if they could operate with a degree of flexibility on such matters. In the amendment we suggest that good authorities should be allowed to experiment.
	As I have said, it is absurd that in a country of this size, with some 50 million people, that there is only one system of local government. No other country in the world has such a rigid structure. Elsewhere people are allowed to introduce their own systems of management within a guidance framework. This approach is objectionable and demonstrates the fact that national government do not trust local government. Greater trust is a theme that I should like to see pursued in this legislation.
	On this side noble Lords feel strongly that some of these matters should be included in the Bill, so I shall now test the feeling of the House on this proposed new clause.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 138.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 not moved.]

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 7:
	Page 60, line 7, leave out paragraph (a).

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, with Amendment No. 7, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 8 and 9. Amendment No. 7 would leave out Clause 104(1)(a), which refers to local elections. Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 would leave out subsection (1)(b) and subsection (2)(b), which refer to elections to the Greater London Assembly and parish councils respectively.
	The amendments return us to a debate that we had in Committee on the Government's stated intention to change the date of the local government elections in 2004 from their statutory position in early May. The rationale is that the local elections should coincide with the European elections in June. Consultation took place some time ago and the Government have made it clear since that they intend to implement the change. Legislative recognition of that is now being sought.
	There are a number of reasons why the Government should not be allowed to change the date of elections, particularly those that are set in law to a precise timescale. The only election that is not set to a precise timescale is, of course, the general election; all others are set to a timescale and framework in law. The Government are proposing unaccountably to bring together the dates of the European election, the mayoral election in London, the election for the Greater London Assembly and any other local government elections that are due to take place in May 2004. Those elections are all to be lumped together and held on a date in June 2004.
	I understand that the Government believe that that would be a one-off—presumably for the moment. However, if it can be done once, it can certainly be done again. In our view, an extremely undesirable precedent would be set. It is undesirable for a number of reasons, not only constitutional and practical, but relating to principle and motive. As I said, constitutionally, dates of elections are set in law by Parliament; they should not be moved lightly. Indeed, they should not be moved unless there is a major emergency. Your Lordships will remember the foot and mouth catastrophe, when it was agreed on a cross-party basis that it was inconceivable that the elections should be held when a great number of people who would be voting were unable to leave their houses because of the restrictions that were in force at that time. But that is not the case here. The only reason seems to be that voters may not want to turn out twice in a short period—five weeks, in fact. But they have done so in the past and I have no doubt that they could manage to do so again.
	If voter turnout is a concern—and indeed it is to all of us—that will not necessarily be resolved by having a whole lot of elections put together that are all done on a different basis. This is not even about elections all to be carried out on first past the post; each one will be carried out in a different form. They will involve a number of policies and projects.
	However, the overriding concern is that any government should feel able to change elections when they think that they have a rational reason to do so. If we do not stop this now, we feel that the Government will return to it in future on the basis of low turnout or it being more convenient, saying, "Oh, let us not worry about returning officers having to deal with several forms of election at the same time; that just looks convenient". That may be convenient for some people—and some voters—but I suspect that most voters would rather stick to the principles enshrined in law and would perfectly willingly turn out in the usual way for two elections. There should be no suggestion that those elections should be brought together. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, it is perhaps proper that I declare my interest. I will be a member of my party's list for the London-wide vote in the London Assembly election, so I have a quite substantial interest; if I am not elected, I will have drawn another month's salary by virtue of the provision, if enacted. The noble Baroness said that voters have done it in the past, but the problem is that they have not necessarily done so in great numbers.
	For me, the overriding issue in what is a difficult situation—I do not minimise the noble Baroness' point about different electoral systems, and so on—is what is convenient for voters. Although I thoroughly enjoy elections, it is pretty obvious that voters do not like being asked to keep on turning out. I am not sure that the balance is overwhelming. The overriding consideration is voters' convenience, but it is a difficult judgment. That is the long and short of it.
	The noble Baroness talks about principles being forfeited. I find it difficult to see what principle is forfeited. Of course I agree that governments should not be allowed on a whim to move election dates around. I should like—this is our clear party policy—fixed dates for general elections. This will not be on a whim but to co-ordinate elections that would otherwise come inconveniently close to one another.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I had not intended to speak to the amendment, although I certainly support it, but I am moved to respond to the speech that we have heard from the Liberal Benches—I say, "Liberal" because people might be amazed to hear such a speech from those Benches. Those people who choose not to vote in elections are often expressing as much of a view as those who do. Recently, in elections for the Scottish Parliament, half the voters did not turn out because they were so disgusted by the performance of the Scottish Parliament—in particular, by the cost of its building, which had risen from £40 million to £400 million.
	Perhaps the advocates of constitutional reform on the Liberal Democrat Benches might reflect that many of their innovations have resulted in complete disillusion on the part of voters and fragmentation of our parliamentary system. It is not the voters' problem that they cannot be bothered to turn out; the problem is that there has been so much constitutional tinkering and meddling that voters have become completely confused and cynical about the political process.
	Far from changing the dates of elections so that the manifest dismay on the part of voters is hidden—which is what the Government's proposals amount to—surely those who advocated constitutional change and setting up more and more bodies of politicians should reflect on what they have brought about and show some respect for the established traditions and way in which we have carried out our electoral process with considerable success, until the tinkering which came from Charter 88 and its friends got us into this mess.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I, too, did not intend to speak to the amendment, but I find it extraordinary that matters that have been decided through election—especially the Scottish Parliament—are now considered to be tinkering by people on the edges.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I cannot resist a quiet chuckle on this one, but I will stick to the point.
	We disagree with the amendments because they would remove the Secretary of State's ability, in different combinations, to move the date of elections to district councils, parish council elections and elections for the Lord Mayor—sorry, the London mayor; although that is a dream is it not?—and the Greater London Assembly. If we accepted Amendment No. 7, we could move only the GLA elections but not parish or local elections; if we accepted Amendment No. 8 we could move only the local and parish elections but not the GLA elections; and if we accepted Amendment No. 9, we could move only the local and GLA elections but not combine parish elections with them on 10th June.
	The accusation was made that we were acting willy-nilly. That is just not the case. We consulted on moving the local, GLA and parish elections in order to combine them with the European Parliament elections. We received support for moving all three sets. Most respondents agreed—172 out of a total of 310 who expressed a preference. Many of those were local authorities and ordinary members of the public. Also, it must be put on record, two of the three major political parties agreed—a position reflected in this debate. The Local Government Association supported our proposal, as did the National Association of Local Councils—a body that supports and encourages parish councils.
	We judge that that support is sufficient to justify our view that we should put the needs of voters first and reject the inconvenience of asking the electorate to turn out twice in five weeks. In an age in which we are concerned about participation in the electoral process, it would be absurd to do otherwise than to have those elections on the same day in 2004. The amendments would wreck Clause 104 and run wholly counter to the perfectly logical aim of increasing voter convenience.
	I greatly respect the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, on local government, but I cannot support what she proposes. I cannot see how she can justify ignoring the support that we have identified in our consultation exercise. I cannot resist making this point: it is not as though we are abandoning wholesale a set of local authority elections. That is not something that this party has a track record of doing; as I look at those on the Benches opposite, I recall that that is something that they delighted in doing some years ago.
	We are trying to encourage electoral participation in what is an important set of local and national elections. All parties should have it within themselves to encourage maximum participation. I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said about that: that people were exercising the option of abstention to express their disagreement with a particular Parliament. That is his view; he is entitled to it. We should encourage participation and try to do all we can to undermine what I would argue sometimes happens in politics, that is the "cynicisation" of the proces. As politicians we have nothing to gain by encouraging that.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords—

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I ought to remind the noble Lord we are on Report.

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister. However, the Minister did refer to me and before he sits down, I should like to raise a serious issue.
	In the Scottish elections the Electoral Commission spent large sums of public money running advertising campaigns. In the advertisements, the commission said that if you do not vote, it means you do not care about the health service or about public education. As the Labour Party would be disadvantaged if there were a low turnout, I think that is of questionable propriety. Many of the people who did not vote did not do so because they did not care about the services, they were expressing a particular view. The notion that turnout as such is something which should be encouraged is right. However, many people are actually expressing a view by deciding not to vote in particular elections.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, makes a perfectly valid point. Incidentally, I think the Electoral Commission has done good work and its independence is something we should be proud of and value. There were those who questioned whether a commission could ever be independent. I applaud them for encouraging people to vote. As the noble Lord said, turnout is very important and an acid test of effective elective democracy. That is something we should all encourage. However, he is right to say that people have a right to abstain and to express a view in that way. One has to respect that.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. If he had only 310 responses to the consultation, then I am slightly concerned. How many authorities are there in this country and how many organisations are there that deal with local government? It seems to me quite extraordinary.
	There is a point that the Minister did not mention about the Electoral Commission. We may get to it by the next amendment, it depends on how we get on with this one. I have a copy of the Electoral Commission's response to the consultation paper, and the response to the proposals is hardly glowing. It would be fair to say that the Electoral Commission has the greatest possible reservations about what the Government are doing. I have the paper here and if the Minister wishes to take that point from it, he can.
	It is very clear from the Electoral Commission's response that it feels that this proposal is fraught with hazard. It is fraught with the hazards which, to some extent, I have already outlined. It is a perfectly reasonable suggestion that there should be a greater voter turnout. However, what about voter confusion? We have a very sophisticated electorate, but why should it have to try to decide between two or three—and in London three or four—forms of voting? Why should it be pestered with different pieces of paper and propaganda for the same day? My view is that the more you try to do on one day, the less likely it is the electorate will turn out. Voters will simply throw their hands up in despair and say, "Why should we even bother?".
	The only rationale for this proposal that I have heard from the Minister today is that it will increase voter turnout. I do not agree with that. I do not think the Electoral Commission feels that the proposal will achieve anything. I think there are real problems about having legislative dates for elections and then changing them. I am sure this Government are benign. There could be other governments that are not benign. While I do not suggest any question of governments abandoning elections, I think that tinkering with election dates looks very curious. I wish to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 97; Not-Contents, 142.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
	[Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 not moved.]

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 10:
	Page 61, line 8, at end insert ", provided that the conditions in subsection (6A) below have been complied with.
	(6A) In consulting the Electoral Commission under subsection (5) above, the Secretary of State must invite the Commission to report publicly on whether, in their view, the making of an order under this section is likely to—
	(a) complicate the conduct of the ballot on the polling day or days;
	(b) lead to greater clarity about and public understanding of the issues involved in the campaign for the elections being moved under the order and for the European Parliamentary elections;
	(c) lead to greater or lesser risk of confusion among electors about the voting procedures in the elections concerned."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I alluded in my final remarks on the previous amendment to the Electoral Commission—the Government's own creature—the views of which are extremely important in terms of electoral progress and probity. A little while ago I asked the Electoral Commission for its views and received a perfectly public document—that is, its response to the consultation paper.
	It is fair to say that the Electoral Commission has considerable reservations in regard to these proposals. Its reservations are important because they relate to the constitutional principle of changing the dates fixed in law by Parliament; the complexities for the voters of the range of votes and electoral systems; the risk of confusing or obscuring the issues at stake in each of the elections; and the difficulty for returning officers of conducting several elections, particularly with different voting systems.
	The Electoral Commission has stated that it sees the potential benefits as the possibility of maximising voter turn-out and removing the inconvenience for electors and party workers of two separate polls within five weeks. But, as far as I can see, those are the only two benefits. The others are overtaken by the concerns it expresses.
	The amendment seeks to ensure that the views of the Electoral Commission are taken again—because, I understand, there should be a second consultation—and that those views are made widely known. I beg to move.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who will be contesting the elections next summer.
	Cynicism is, unfortunately, part of my personality make-up. I have listened with enormous interest to the contributions made by both the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, just now and, a few minutes ago, by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, who, I regret to say, is no longer in his place. The noble Baroness displayed an enormous respect for the Electoral Commission, whereas her colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, a few minutes ago said that it was a dreadful organisation which promoted increased turn-out in elections.
	I wonder what is the purpose of the amendment. It requires the Electoral Commission to produce a report—a report which, I suspect, will be something of a no-brainer. In London, for example, if elections are combined, electors going to the polls will be asked to mark ballot papers five times; they will be given three separate pieces of paper; and candidates will be elected under four different electoral systems. If you present a detailed report on whether or not that is potentially confusing and require the Electoral Commission to publish it—and, no doubt, spend an enormous amount of money in so doing—you are actually seeking to frighten people from going to the polls. If we end up with a great debate about how complicated voting will be in the elections next summer—because it is all so difficult with the different systems and different ballot papers—we will succeed in putting off people and reducing the overall level of turn-out.
	We can have enjoyable debates in the House about the mechanisms of the D'Hondt system for allocating additional members and how the system will work, but that does not matter to the people who are voting. They want to know, quite simply, that they go to the polling station, or vote by post, or whatever it may be, and that they cast their vote for the parties of their choice. It is as simple as that. That is all they have to do. That is the only message that is required. The more that public organisations, politicians and other opinion formers seek to tell people that this process is very complicated and difficult and that they will find it hard to express their point of view when they get there, the more likely it is that we will have a reduced turnout.
	The reality is that this amendment calls for a report to be published—I do not know at what expense—which will tell us something we already know but in a way that will increase the sense that these elections are somehow difficult and to be avoided. The amendment has an underlying strand running underneath it. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, let the cat out of the bag earlier when he said, essentially, that it is Conservative Party policy to depress turnout whenever possible, because higher turnouts favour the Labour Party.
	If that is the motivation, fine. Let us be explicit about that. The amendment is about confusing the electorate by telling them that voting is difficult. I do not believe it to be worthy of the support of your Lordships' House.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the amendment sets out a range of issues about which the Secretary of State would be obliged to invite the views of the Electoral Commission. Although I reject the need for the amendment, for reasons that I will explain, at least it shows that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is thinking a little more constructively.
	I listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, had to say about the matter. I think that he is right. There is a tendency to talk down turnout, which is the danger of this amendment and may explain the politics that lie behind it.
	I want to focus on the constructive and make it plain that we as a Government value the view of the Electoral Commission. It is important, otherwise we would not have sought to create a commission in the first instance. The commission's views could be embarrassing to the Government. It could be interpreted as being in disagreement with the Government, but it was established to have independent view. We welcome the commission's comments. That is why we consulted the commission on the principle of this particular combination, why we have regular exchanges and why we will consult it about any orders moving the date or amending the rules necessary for the conduct of the combined elections before putting them before Parliament.
	We reject the need for Amendment No. 10. We want the commission to report its views on these issues in its own way reflecting its impartiality. Indeed, the commission has commented on all of the issues raised in the amendment, so requiring it to do so is mysteriously superfluous.
	Some important things were said in the Electoral Commission's response. It was recognised that combining elections could be beneficial and would help to maximise the turnout. It would also remove the inconvenience factor for voters, and for party workers and activists in terms of running two separate sets of elections within five weeks—we know how inconvenient that can be. We wholly agree with the commission. I continue to be puzzled about why members of the party opposite are so opposed to having two elections on one day. It is not as if they were not involved in the great experiment. In 1979, there was a very high turnout for the local elections that were held on same day as the general election.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is a member of the party that ensured that there was a combination election on that occasion, and I do not remember them trotting off to seek consultation. They were happy with the outcome, as they were with the outcome whenever there have been other combinations of elections during the period that they were in office.
	The commission was plain about its concern about the risk of confusing or obscuring the issues at stake in different elections. There is a need to explain the different voting systems to the public as well as the practical difficulties for returning officers and their staff of administering a combined election, especially when different voting systems are used. Those are issues that we and others—including the commission and electoral administrators—are addressing.
	We accept that there are areas of concern, but we do not accept that they should prevent us from combining elections. We can address the issues that have been raised and will continue to have a dialogue with the commission on those matters. We have already discussed the benefits of combining elections, so we think that the amendment is superfluous. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, will feel able to withdraw it.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am not sure whether to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, for his contribution, because it was unusually unworthy. To play down turnout is certainly not something that my party is trying to do. It would be hard to do such a thing, because turnout in local elections keeps going down. To reduce turnout would not be to anyone's benefit.
	I refer briefly to the Minister's comment about 1979. We were on a different playing field then. The 1979 general election was held on the date of the local elections, which had already been set. Although the two elections were combined, they were held on the same basis—first past the post. What has happened in the interim is that there is now a great run to adopt proportional representation, but not a proportional representation that has any logic. We have several varieties taking place on the same day.
	The purpose of this amendment, and also the purpose of the previous debate, is to try to draw attention to the fact that there is a great deal of incoherence about what is predicated for June 2004. It is unsatisfactory that the Government can set about changing the dates of elections for not terribly good reasons. It will be interesting to see whether voter turnout is affected by the manner in which the elections are conducted. Having said that, I do not intend to pursue the matter further and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]

Baroness Maddock: moved Amendment No. 12:
	After Clause 106, insert the following new clause—
	"DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS A member of a local valuation tribunal is not liable for anything done or omitted in the discharge or purported discharge of his functions as a member of that tribunal unless the act or omission is shown to have been in bad faith."

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, this amendment concerns members of local valuation tribunals. I raised this matter in Committee, and having looked at what the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, said at that time, and following discussions with representatives of LVTs, I wish to pursue it further to see whether we can clarify the position.
	Over many years, LVT members have expressed serious concern about their potential liability should a disaffected appellant decide to bring an action against them. It is an accepted fact that judges enjoy immunity from suit. Likewise, arbitral and administrative tribunals have long been held to have judicial immunity at common law. The LVT members accept that, as tribunal judiciary, they also have immunity in respect of their judicial function and their judicial decisions.
	LVT members are concerned, however, about the amount of protection that they would have should they be attacked as a result of their decisions or their involvement in administrative functions. Such functions may not be directly related to the hearing of a case, but about which an aggrieved person may have a complaint—a claim of being disadvantaged by an adverse agenda setting or alleged administrative mismanagement, for example. That is the issue.
	The position of arbitral tribunals has been clarified. Parliament, in its wisdom, decided to accept the advice provided to it by the Department of Trade and Industry's Departmental Advisory Committee on Arbitration Law. To remove any doubt, Section 29(1) of the Arbitration Act 1996 clarifies the situation. My amendment is based on the wording of that Act.
	In like manner, members of LVTs also carry out both a judicial function, and frequently, administrative functions to support it. The Government's position, which was clarified in Committee, is that it is standard practice for departments sponsoring non-departmental public bodies to indemnify their members and staff against costs arising from or incurred while carrying out their official functions. However, there is a caveat to that indemnity, which was clarified again for us in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. The caveat is that the indemnity is available only where they are seen not to have acted recklessly. The problem is that that is another variation of the imprecise wording which has been used at various times. Other examples include, "conduct has not been unreasonable", "acted reasonably", "acted responsibly" and "not acted in bad faith".
	Local valuation tribunal members must therefore rely on the Civil Service being sufficiently kind to interpret such imprecise wording in a way that provides local valuation tribunal members with proper indemnity in relation to any action that might be brought against them and to decide quickly on whether the indemnity is to be provided. Unpaid volunteer members of local valuation tribunals are very apprehensive about being reliant on such a system. Clerks and tribunal support staff will continue to be covered effectively as employees. However, even post-2004, local valuation tribunal members will continue to be locally appointed and subject to regulatory supervision by the Secretary of State. They will have no direct connection with the new non-departmental public body and the new valuation tribunal service.
	If the current arrangement is continued, civil servants and/or politicians would take the final decision on whether to indemnify. They appear not to be able to settle, as I explained, on a precise test for that support or to agree on the wording. I therefore maintain that the procedure is not very transparent. More importantly, the process could take quite a long time and could even go to judicial review.
	All the concerns of local valuation tribunal members could be removed by the simple expedient of Parliament statutorily confirming that the current common law judicial immunity is extended to include administrative matters. The Government seem very concerned—I know that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, raised this in Committee—about the possible financial consequences of such action. However, immunity can prevent actions from being initiated. It could therefore prevent some of the problems that we may get anyway.
	I think that I have fairly fully explained the situation. As I said, the wording of the amendment is in line with wording in another Act covering this type of issue. The inclusion of this clause would remove the anxiety from the minds of local valuation tribunal members. Like members of the service, I believe that it will reduce the possibility of a tribunal's decisions being affected by the fear of potential action. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as I think I made plain in Committee, I do not see a need for such amendment. Amendment No. 12 seeks to introduce into legislation a clause to remove any liability from members to local valuation tribunals for any acts or omissions by them while undertaking their tribunal functions, unless those were in bad faith. Members holding office have public policy immunity from an action in negligence. Similar protection already exists for members of local valuation tribunals through the standard procedures governing the relationship between public bodies and their sponsoring departments. Departments will indemnify members against any personal civil liability provided they have acted honestly, reasonably, in good faith and without negligence. That seems to me to cover it.
	Furthermore, Clauses 106 and 107 are primarily concerned with the creation of a new body, the valuation tribunal service, and the framework for that new body. They are not about local valuation tribunals. Ultimately, therefore, I think that it is inappropriate to introduce such a new clause. We have had no complaints about the way in which the current system works on this issue. Although I realise that the noble Baroness wants to provide a further comfort blanket for members of the service, we do not think that that is necessary. If a problem emerges in future, we can review the situation and deal with it then. I do not think that this amendment is required and I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw it.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his next to last comment—that the Government will keep an eye on the situation and ensure that there are no problems. The purpose of the amendment is not to provide a total blanket, but to clarify that we are talking about the words "bad faith" and not all the other descriptions used in this regard. However, in view of the Minister's comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 13:
	Before Clause 113, insert the following new clause—
	"REGULATION OF BODY PIERCING ESTABLISHMENTS OUTSIDE LONDON After section 36 of the Local Government Act 1988 (c. 9) there is inserted—
	"36A REGULATION OF BODY PIERCING ESTABLISHMENTS OUTSIDE LONDON
	(1) The Secretary of State shall, within twelve months of this section coming into force, by regulation make provision for the extension of powers to all local authorities in England to regulate establishments carrying out body piercing.
	(2) Powers under this section to make regulations shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.""

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, this amendment was first moved in another place by my honourable friend Philip Hammond. I understand that it is appropriate to raise this issue within the terms of this Bill. I do so only because I seek some assurances. When I briefly mentioned the issue at Second Reading and—because of Mr Hammond's concerns—asked for an assurance that Ministers were considering it, some noble Lords quizzically raised their eyebrows. The Minister in another place, Mr Nick Raynsford, said that discussions were taking place. I wonder whether there has been any progress on those talks and where we go from here. I also realise that my amendment may not be drafted correctly. If so, I am willing to take advice.
	Body piercing may seem an odd issue to raise. However, increasing numbers of people, particularly young people, are undergoing the procedure. All parts of the body can end up with bits and pieces stuck through them. The procedure is undertaken also by some who are not quite so young. No one is concerned at all about that; it is up to them. We are simply concerned about whether those doing the piercing are under any form of regulation or licence.
	We are concerned for several reasons. First, it is an invasive procedure that involves needles and should involve sterile procedures and a hygienic location. I think that parental consent also should be required in the case of those in their early teens, and certainly those under 16. Such consent is currently not required. The Greater London Authority Act regulates the procedure in London, where all premises carrying out such procedures are regulated and licensed. As I understand it, however, that is not the position in the rest of the country.
	Therefore, several issues arise, the first of which is consent. The second is the need to ensure that these establishments maintain clean and sterile procedures. People have contracted septicaemia when the procedure was performed in unclean conditions. There is also the issue of whether young people should be allowed to have their bodies abused in this way without their parents being informed and giving consent. Furthermore, those performing the procedure ought to know that the procedure can affect various medical conditions. That issue was brought to the attention of another place as the result of the death of a young man of 17 who had a congenital heart defect. Those performing the procedure were unaware of his condition. He contracted septicaemia, to which he was susceptible as a result of congenital heart disease, and he died.
	That is the burden of the amendment. The amendment asks that, within a reasonable time—the amendment provides for one year—regulations be issued to ensure that premises cannot carry out these procedures without being regulated. However, I do not want anyone to say that I am trying to stamp on anyone's enthusiasm for self-decoration. It is just that if they are going to undergo the procedure, they should survive it. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we support the noble Baroness: she raises an important point. When the noble Baroness responds, I wonder whether she can give us any idea of how well the system is operating in London. Also—and I am sure that this is dear to her heart—can the noble Baroness say, bearing in mind that we are not looking for a straight read across, whether the current regime requires fees to be paid and whether they cover the costs of local authorities in undertaking the licensing? The noble Baroness may not know and I appreciate that. Although it is important, it is not so important as ensuring people's health and their survival.
	When dealing with the matter in another place, the Minister raised a concern about there being two different regulatory regimes if this measure were introduced. He said that there would be,
	"a registration and bylaws regime for ear-piercing, tattooing, electrolysis and acupuncture and a licensing regime for body piercing".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 13/2/03; col. 604.]
	That is an important point to be ironed out. I hope that she will be able to say "Yes" to the fact that regulations will address and co-ordinate the regime.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising this issue. She referred to it at Second Reading, but there was not an opportunity during Committee to discuss the matter. We are very sympathetic towards the concern that local authorities outside London should have powers to regulate cosmetic body-piercing businesses.
	The Government are committed to giving local authorities outside London powers to regulate cosmetic body-piercing businesses so that the position across the country is consistent. We intend to bring forward an amendment to achieve that at Third Reading.
	For the record, the proposed amendment does not take into account the existing legislation, which already gives local authorities outside London powers to regulate ear piercing, tattooing, electrolysis and acupuncture. That is contained in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, which needs to be amended and that is what we intend to do. We also intend that local authorities outside London should have powers to regulate businesses providing micropigmentation or similar services and our amendment will cover these activities.
	I do not have advice at the moment on the question of consent. It is a double-edged weapon. I have brought with me to the House today my own catalogue of sophisticated body adornment products. It contains every product that one can think of for fitting on any and every part of the human anatomy. The House is a family place so I shall not read them all out, but these products are not just for young people.
	The reason I have the catalogue is that there was an occasion when an issue arose regarding parents with young children aged three or four, and even babies, wishing to have them pierced. Consent could not be given by the child and that was the issue. I walked into the studio expecting a real towelling from various people and the parents. I was met by a couple of dozen people who had ball bells hanging from all the parts of the body which I could see and they assured me that they were hanging from all the parts which I could not see. I thought "Wow, I'm in trouble here". But, no, they said that they were on my side because they were adults who had gone into the matter openly and had made a free choice. They said that they had gone to places with air conditioning, clinically clean and where business was conducted properly. They said that children should not have it done to them. Therefore, consent works both ways.
	I shall take advice between now and Third Reading, which will not be for some time because of the approaching Recess, and return to the issue. I have a line to take on the age of consent, but I am not really clear whether it meets the point. We do not have any plans currently to introduce a minimum age of consent for body piercing.
	But that answers only one part of the question: it does not answer the question about parents with young children who cannot give consent to be pierced for the gratification of the parents. On the same television programme I was accompanied by a consultant from a hospital in the Midlands. He spent part of his time digging out attachments to bodies. There is a serious issue if the matter is not dealt with properly.
	In no way do we seek to curtail people's choice as regards what sophisticated body adornments they wish to have and on which parts of the body they wish to attach them. Nevertheless, it needs to be done safely and so that the attachments can be removed. It is made clear in the catalogue that some of the items are intended to be worn for a short period of time and also you must make sure that the internal diameter is correct. There are all kinds of caveats and warnings in such a catalogue. In view of the fact that I am going to return to the matter at Third Reading when I may share more of the contents of the catalogue with noble Lords, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I am extremely grateful for the Minister's reply. I am delighted to learn that there will be an amendment at Third Reading. I knew that we had got the Act wrong because I believe that the Local Government Act 1988 has been abandoned. I am tantalised by the Minister's catalogue. I did not know that he went to such lengths to conduct research. He is certainly one up on me in that regard.
	If parents are voluntarily having their children pierced for the parents' gratification, that is quite difficult. My problem is those cases where children are having it done without their parents knowing about it and then running into all kinds of problems. I agree with the Minister that there are two sides to the question of consent. It may be that better brains than mine will be able to tangle with that. In the mean time, it seems to me that better brains are really tangling with the matter. I am extremely grateful and thank the Minister for his reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 14:
	After Clause 113, insert the following new clause—
	"ADOPTION: CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTIONS
	(1) No person employed by, working for or acting as an adviser to a local authority shall be under any duty whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement to participate in—
	(a) any placement under section 18 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (c. 38) (placement for adoption agencies); or
	(b) any application under section 49 of that Act (application for adoption)
	to which he has a conscientious objection on either of the grounds specified in subsection (2). (2) The grounds referred to in subsection (1) are that the placement is with, or the application is made by—
	(a) a couple who are not a married couple; or
	(b) one person who is in fact part of a couple within the meaning of section 144(4)(b) of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (general interpretation etc). (3) In any legal proceedings the burden of proof of conscientious objection shall rest upon the person claiming to rely on it.
	(4) A local authority shall not treat less favourably any person who relies on subsection (1) above."

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, we have some wonderful professionals involved in the work of placing children for adoption. Many are excellent, competent and effective professionals. However, Dawn Jackson and Nora Ellis were hounded out of their work as social workers because they held a conscientious belief that children for adoption should be placed with married couples.
	My amendment simply asks for a conscience clause for such people like that enjoyed by doctors as regards abortion and by teachers as regards religious belief. Neither of these conscience clauses, which have been on the statute book for quite a long time, has caused difficulties in any way either to the medical or the education professions. No employee who is otherwise good in every respect in their work should be intimidated to the point of losing their jobs. A conscience clause would therefore be a way of helping to keep excellent professionals involved in the important work of placing children for adoption. I beg to move.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have some interest in this matter because noble Lords will know that we debated the change in the adoption law extensively in the previous Session of Parliament. I believe that the measures taken will lead to a very great improvement in the way in which adoption procedures are conducted. Anyone who has looked at the outcome statistics comparing children in care to the outcome for children who had been adopted would find it very hard not to conclude that we should do everything we possibly can to increase the number of children who are adopted in this country.
	Whatever one's view about the issue of same-sex couples being able to adopt, I believe that most noble Lords who took part in those very extensive debates agreed that there was a very good purpose in seeking to improve adoption procedures.
	I do not want to re-open the question as to whether that was the right thing to do as regards same-sex couples: I believe very strongly that it was. As regards a question of conscience undertaken by individual social workers who do not agree with such adoptions, I do not believe that it is a matter of such moment that social workers should be given that ability. I hope that noble Lords will not agree to the amendment.
	I do not think—and it is a value judgment after all—that one should be able to equate a matter of conscience in relation to the abortion law to a matter of conscience in relation to gay adoption. At the end of the day it is a matter of individual decision as to how one equates the issues and whether there is a hierarchy of conscientious objection, but as this Parliament approved the new adoption law that allows same-sex couples to adopt after going through a thorough process it does not seem reasonable to pass this amendment to allow an opt-out for social workers.
	As for the alleged intimidation against social workers, I would always regret any act of intimidation by an employer against an employee under any such circumstances. One would always hope that adoption agencies and local authorities would be good employers and that where intimidation does take place, staff have recourse to the law. But accepting the noble Baroness's amendment would chip away at Parliament's intention when we passed the Adoption and Children Act in the last Session. I hope that noble Lords will not go down that path.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I too have something to do with the matter. I shall not take much time, because I agree with everything the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, said, especially that the amendment seeks to chip away at the clear decision by the House in which I supported the Government and was opposed by my noble friend Lady Blatch. It was one of the toughest fights in which I have been involved, but we made it and it became an Act of Parliament. To come back here and chip away at the decision of both Houses by such an amendment is not playing the game. I oppose it.

Lord Marsh: My Lords, one of the problems of these debates is that we all know perfectly well that most of us could go around the Chamber and work out exactly who is going to go through which Lobby; none the less we go through the debate out of politeness. Not only do we know which way through the Lobby noble Lords will go, but we could precis all the speeches that will be made on each subject.
	There is a pattern, an irreconcilable division. Some believe, for religious reasons, or what they call moral reasons—by which they mean their moral reasons—that people should not be allowed to adopt children if they are homosexual. There are many arguments against this but the key issue is that everyone involved in the placing of children believes that it would be a disastrous decision because, although some people go away from the debate with a glow of satisfaction, a large number of children would fail to be placed with a loving couple.
	The other issue that arises time and time again is that people who live together as opposed to having a formal marriage are somehow a sub-species. Yet the House has to recognise that a large and growing number of people, for different reasons, choose not to get married. For two and a half years my wife-to-be and I lived together because we regarded marriage as an important step that we did not want to take lightly. When we eventually did, it was primarily at the insistence of our accountants.
	We do not all have the same religious beliefs and it is arrogant to seek to impose one's belief on people who do not share it on the simple grounds that, "I am right and you are wrong". I find it a sad situation that there is such intolerance of other people's opinions on these issues that many of us define as private matters for personal opinion.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I rise to say a few words about the needs of children being paramount as expressed in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Children Act. I declare an interest as a co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Children, which has considered the matter deeply.
	As noble Lords have said, last autumn we debated the issue of unmarried and same-sex couples in adoption and agreed that it was right in the best interests of the child. I recall a great deal of evidence being considered during the debates and a well thought-out decision being made with the welfare of children at its heart. To attempt to go back on that decision is retrospective. I oppose the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I agree with almost everything in the last raft of speeches. The amendment is against the background of a recent decision. We have heard of the large numbers of children in care. I add to that the difficulty that social services departments have in struggling to cope with a variety of clients' needs. In the South East one might almost say that they are at crisis point. I wonder about the management of the organisation if there were an opportunity to opt out of certain matters on this basis.
	I hope that good management in a social services department, as anywhere, would mean that people were directed to their skills being used for what they are best at. A social worker with an objection to a particular matter might not be so good at it. I am not suggesting that that would be deliberate, but it is human nature.
	At the last stage I asked the noble Baroness if a social worker with a problem of conscience over the issue could work in adoption at all because by definition they would have to consider the whole pool of potential adopters. I cannot equate the matter with abortion. I have been trying to work out why not. One of the reasons is that abortion is a discrete procedure with many matters surrounding it other than the medical procedure. In the case of a child seeking placement one needs to consider all the child's needs.
	The amendment is about particular placements. In the light of what I have said I wonder whether it would be workable. We oppose the amendment.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, we have just heard six speeches in 11 minutes, so I will be as commendably brief in responding to the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Winchester. It seeks to ensure that no person working for, or on behalf of, a local authority shall be under any duty, whether by contract or statutory or other legal requirement, to participate in adoption placements or processing adoption applications to which they have a conscientious objection.
	That refers to cases where children are to be placed for adoption with an unmarried couple or with one person who is in fact part of a couple living together as partners in an enduring family relationship. It also covers the processing of those adoption applications.
	As noble Lords have said, the Adoption and Children Act 2002 allows, for the first time, unmarried couples, regardless of their sexual orientation, to apply to adopt a child jointly. However, it has long been possible for a person in an unmarried relationship to apply to adopt as a single person.
	Therefore, the Adoption and Children Act does not raise any fundamental new issues, and thus we do not believe that there is any need whatever to make special provision in terms of "conscientious objections" as a result of the change to enable unmarried couples to adopt jointly. Arguably, the key benefit for children of the change in the 2002 Act is that it gives a child adopted by an unmarried couple the permanence and security of having two parents.
	Essentially, the proposed new clause raises an employment issue because it relates wholly to the adults concerned. As I suggested in Grand Committee, these matters are being more suitably addressed by the Employment Equality (Religion and Belief) Regulations 2003, which were approved by both Houses of Parliament on 17th June. Those regulations, when made, will prohibit discrimination in employment and vocational training on the grounds of religion or belief.
	Local authorities have a clear duty to maintain an adoption service in their area that meets the needs of those who may adopt a child. That includes unmarried couples and individuals who are in fact part of a couple. The proposed new clause would make it more difficult for local authorities to meet their duties and could well lead to delays in the assessment of prospective adopters who are able to meet the needs of the children waiting for adoption. The Government believe that it is unacceptable to risk vulnerable children losing out on the chance of, or experiencing delays in, finding a new family.
	The comparison drawn at the Grand Committee stage with conscientious objection to abortion is wholly unhelpful in that conscientious objection to participating in an abortion procedure often raises strong ethical issues around the sanctity of life, whereas objecting to non-married couples adopting is a matter of judgmental attitudes towards other people's lifestyles and personal choices, which, in the current times, seems entirely inappropriate. Therefore, I invite the noble Baroness, on her own behalf and on that of the right reverend Prelate, to withdraw the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for the full answer given by the Minister. My amendment does not cut across what Parliament has decided. Parliament has made a decision, and that is that. In the case of abortion, Parliament decided; and in the case of religious education, Parliament decided. No doctor loses his job simply because he will not take part in the abortion process, and no teacher loses his job if he will not take a religious assembly. Therefore, why should a social worker lose his job simply because he has a conscientious belief that children should be placed with a married couple?
	The issue is simple: it is whether a professional should be refused employment on the ground of his conscientious belief. He is not imposing that belief on anyone else; he is simply saying that he does not wish to do something. He is not even arguing against the legislation—the legislation is what the legislation is.
	But the logical conclusion that I draw from all that has been said in the debate is that, frankly, a professional who wishes to be involved in the adoption processes for all the right reasons—that is, because he believes it is in the interests of the child—should be refused employment if he cannot accept that children should be placed in families other than those where the parents are married. That is the logic and, if the Government are really honest, that is the law that they should pass if that is what they mean. However, I should prefer to fight for Dawn Jackson and Nora Ellis, who have been hounded out of their jobs on those grounds. I consider that to be objectionable. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this may be a convenient moment to move that consideration on Report be adjourned until after Starred Questions.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
	[The Sitting was suspended from 1.34 to 2 p.m. for Judicial Business and to 3 p.m. for Public Business.]

Royal Assent

Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts and a Measure:
	Appropriation Act 2003, Finance Act 2003, Co-operatives and Community Benefit Societies Act 2003, Marine Safety Act 2003, Licensing Act 2003, Sunday Working (Scotland) Act 2003, Aviation (Offences) Act 2003, Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003, Nottingham City Council Act 2003, Clergy Discipline Measure 2003.

Millennium Development Goals: Reproductive Health

Viscount Craigavon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What importance they are giving to reproductive health in their commitment to meeting the internationally-agreed millennium development goals.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, reproductive health continues to be a key priority for DfID. We remain firmly committed to the target, agreed at the 1994 Cairo International Conference on Population and Development, of achieving access to reproductive health for all by 2015. DfID believes that population and reproductive health issues are fundamental to efforts to tackle poverty and achieve the millennium development goals. We plan to write a public policy statement on reproductive health before the end of the year.

Viscount Craigavon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that most welcome and encouraging answer. With regard to the statement that she mentioned, will the Minister agree that if we are to have a realistic chance of meeting some of the millennium development goals by 2015—one thinks particularly of the child mortality and maternal health goals—it is essential that her department maintains its complete support and indeed leadership on this subject, especially in view of the slightly negative sounds that we hear from the other side of the Atlantic?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am happy to reassure the noble Viscount that our commitment to reproductive health remains very strong. We recognise the need to continue to promote reproductive health and rights within the international policy arena. I can also tell him that we have established a millennium development goals and reproductive health team within the policy division of the department to reflect the importance that we attach to the issue. The noble Viscount will know that spending by DfID on reproductive health has risen from £40 million in 1997 to £270 million this year.

Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, the department also has a number of programmes to deal with HIV and AIDS. Are they not likely to diminish the focus on sexual health and reproduction?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we do not see a conflict. So far as the department is concerned, the focus is not likely to diminish. We shall continue to work on both reproductive health and HIV/AIDS in all our country programmes, with the aim of achieving the three goals to which I have referred. We recognise that access to reproductive health systems and information is essential to efforts to prevent HIV and AIDS.

Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I am sure that we have all been delighted to hear the Minister's answers today. However, can she tell us what will be the overall effect on budgets for reproductive health, at an international level, of the United States' reluctance to co-operate in these matters because of pressure from the extreme right?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, there certainly are concerns about some activity that is taking place with regard to, for instance, funding for family planning clinics. However, I can reassure the noble Baroness that DfID made a one-off contribution of £25 million to the United Nations Population Fund to assist it to make up the shortfall that it experienced; and, of course, the EU has also renewed its determination on that matter.

Baroness Flather: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on introducing more focus on reproductive health in the millennium development goals. We have been asking for it, and we are grateful. Will the Minister also agree that the poorest of the poor are the women of developing countries, that reproductive health goals must inevitably include access to family planning and that the choice factor is extremely important?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, for those remarks. I agree that women are the poorest of the poor. In reading up for this Question, I discovered that every year over half a million women die from the dreadful consequences of a lack of maternal health. However, through our funding of UNFPA, with which the noble Baroness will be familiar—approximately £18 million per year—we provide support to all parts of the supply chain, the access chain to which the noble Baroness referred. By supporting the strengthening of health systems more generally, DfID makes an important contribution to developing local capacity for access to reproductive health supplies.

Lord Rea: My Lords, to follow the question asked by my noble friend Lady Whitaker, will the Minister agree that services related to reproductive health should be closely related to services concerned with the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases, particularly HIV and AIDS? The international community and DfID have understandably put a lot of resources into the fight against AIDS, but can the Minister say whether the two arms of the service should be linked and what steps DfID is taking to achieve that?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I very much agree with my noble friend. DfID's definition of "reproductive health" encompasses maternal conditions, family planning, fertility regulation and the tackling of sexually transmitted infections, including the prevention of HIV/AIDS.

Lord Chan: My Lords, will the Minister go further to include in the purpose of reproductive health the care of new-born babies? If babies do not survive, it would be extremely difficult to carry on a family planning programme with any success.

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I entirely agree that the survival of young children is most important and is very much a part of the accent that we place on our reproductive health programmes with developing countries.

Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, the Minister referred to the considerable increase in spending on reproductive health from £40 million to £270 million. Can she give a clearer indication of precisely where that increased funding goes?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I am happy to write to the noble Lord. I shall not take up the time of the House to give full details. It will be spent on the issues to which I have referred, including helping pregnant mothers—many women in developing countries die during pregnancy—antenatal care, the care of infants and young children, and ultimately, through our support for developing country programmes, the care of all the family, because healthy mothers mean healthy families, which mean healthy local economies.

Lord Elton: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend Lady Flather, the Minister said that the Government were funding the UNFPA. What steps have been taken to ensure that none of that funding supports the coercive family planning programme in China? If money goes to China, how is the distinction made between the small number of areas of the country where it is not coercive and the rest of the country where it is?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the UNFPA has looked into the concerns that the noble Lord has raised. I understand that Members of the other place were part of a delegation that visited China following such concerns. The UNFPA certainly satisfied DfID that there is no coercion involved in the programme in which it is involved.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, does the Minister agree with me that some of the international development targets are hopelessly unrealistic? It is 25 years since primary healthcare for all was declared at the Alma-Ata conference and it is obvious that primary healthcare has not reached the majority of the poor. Can the noble Baroness influence her department to influence the United Nations to moderate some of their targets?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that the target of 2015 is an extremely challenging one. There will need to be a step change in the commitment of all international leaders in that area, including NGOs, if we are to reach those targets. In all the support that DfID provides to the health sector, our highest priority is to ensure the provision of good primary healthcare.

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, 2,000 babies are born with HIV/AIDS every day. The UN human development report 2003 released this week warned that sub-Saharan Africa will not reach the millennium development goals for child mortality until 2065. What pressure are the Government placing on their European counterparts to fulfil and to take their commitments further to the global health fund to fight HIV/AIDS?

Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we work extremely closely with our European partners and wherever possible we ensure that the common position is strengthened in reproductive and sexual health matters and we shall continue to do so.

Equitable Life: Penrose Inquiry

Lord Higgins: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they now expect the report of the Penrose inquiry into Equitable Life to be published.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Lord Penrose has said that he intends to report to Treasury Ministers later this summer. The report will be published as soon as reasonably practicable after it has been received.

Lord Higgins: My Lords, as the Treasury was responsible for regulating Equitable Life, is it wrong for the inquiry to be set up by the Treasury, with terms of reference determined by the Treasury, with reports being made back to the Treasury and with the Treasury deciding what to do about it? The inquiry was set up in August 2001 and it was expected to report last year. It is still stuck in the long grass. When will we have a firm date for the report? Can the Minister tell the House?
	More specifically, does the Minister recall that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, speaking on the "Money Box" programme, said that if any former Equitable Life director was not prepared to co-operate with the inquiry, the inquiry would be put on a statutory basis. Have any witnesses refused to co-operate and is that still the Government's position?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is running in two opposite directions. On the one hand he says that the report is too much controlled by the Treasury and, on the other hand, he complains that we have not speeded up the report. The report is independent. It is being conducted by a Scottish judge. He has complete freedom on how he conducts his inquiry. Incidentally, he is still being paid as a Scottish judge; he is not being paid by the Treasury. The Treasury has no influence on when he produces his report. As to the issue of refusals to participate, it is not my understanding that there have been more than occasional refusals to participate and I am told that those refusals are not critical to the report.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, while the House recognises that the report is not formally a Treasury report, the Government have taken a significant interest in the developments in Equitable Life if for no other reason than the fact that most Members of the House of Commons had their pensions with Equitable Life? Does he accept that the delay in publishing the report is damaging to the interests of policy holders who may have lost money and to directors who have co-operated with the inquiry and who have the threat of litigation, both actual and potential, hanging over them? Does he take the view that Her Majesty's Government should do anything that they can to speed up the inquiry?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I certainly agree that it is the Treasury's job to keep abreast of the situation. Indeed, the Ombudsman, in her report published recently, says specifically that the Treasury kept abreast of the developing Equitable Life situation and had regular discussions with the FSA. In other words, life goes on despite the fact that Lord Penrose is still producing his report. Once we set up an independent inquiry, and once it has been given the very wide terms of reference that it has, it is for Lord Penrose to decide when he feels able to produce a report with which he is content; it is not for us to chase him.

Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that what he has outlined has been the policy of successive governments, certainly since the 1970s, when I had that responsibility? It is entirely wrong for any suggestion to emanate anywhere in the House that Lord Penrose or anyone in such a situation should be influenced by the government of the day.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I entirely agree. Imagine the reaction if the Treasury had said to Lord Penrose, "Come on, this has taken long enough; produce your report now", and he had produced a report that was, let us say, critical of some players in Equitable Life. Would they not then say that the report did not have credibility and would they not protect themselves on the grounds that the report had been rushed forward by the Treasury?

Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, would it not be more sensible and compassionate to employ someone full-time to produce the report, to reach conclusions and to make recommendations before more people lose future pensions in other pension schemes and in the Equitable Life scheme?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, when I said that Lord Penrose was being paid as a Scottish judge I did not say that he was acting as a Scottish judge. He is, and has been from the beginning, full-time on the inquiry and he has a very substantial staff working for him.

Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am glad that the Minister spoke of the Ombudsman's report on this subject, which presumably, like me, he has read. Will he undertake to investigate the Ombudsman's comment that the FSA was under such a lax regulatory regime, under instructions by the Treasury?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Ombudsman is entirely independent of the Treasury and we are not responsible for anything in her report. I have read only the summary and conclusions. The report is 100 pages long and I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, on having read every word of it. I do not recognise the quotation that he appears to be giving the House, but I shall look into the matter and see whether a response is necessary. It did not seem to me that the Ombudsman's report, as a whole, focused significant criticism either on the FSA or on the Treasury.

Directors' Remuneration

Lord Dormand of Easington: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What progress they have made with their proposals to deal with excessive awards to company chairmen and directors.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, in August 2002, the Government introduced the Directors' Remuneration Report Regulations, which give shareholders of quoted companies a vote on the directors' remuneration report. These regulations need to be given time to demonstrate their full effect. The options presented in the Department of Trade and Industry's document "Directors' Remuneration—Contracts Performance and Severance", published on 3rd June, are currently the subject of consultation, which closes on 30th September. Any further government action on this issue will be considered in the light of the responses to the consultation.

Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that in recent months there has been a noticeable increase in the number and type of payments and perks in this field? My noble friend mentioned consultation. If I am correct, we have now been consulting for at least two, possibly three years. Can he say, or hazard a guess on, when the Government might come to a decision? Will that be by the end of this year?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we have not only been consulting, we have taken action. As I said in my Answer, we have produced the Directors' Remuneration Report Regulations 2002. We need to see what effect those will have. We are now consulting on a new set of proposals. There is no point in consulting unless one waits to the end of the consultation before taking action.

Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister recognise that many of us are encouraged by the persistent way in which my noble friend Lord Dormand presses this question? We need to see a consideration of the extraordinary and persistent growth in the ratio of top pay to average pay. It is now 100:1 in major public limited companies; that is, £20,000 to £2 million. Will he take note of the fact that this is not a free market, as would apply to David Beckham and other footballers? It would be better described in some respects as a rigged market in so far as self-serving remuneration committees are all chasing the upper quartile, as independent studies have demonstrated.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am aware of and greatly admire the persistence of my noble friend Lord Dormand, on this question. Hardly a month passes without us returning to this question. He is right to do so, because the issue is serious. The only question in dispute is over the best way to tackle it. We continue to think that the best way to tackle it is by giving more opportunities to shareholders to make their voices heard. That is the correct way. It is significant that we have seen spectacular revolts by shareholders when they felt that a company's position was being abused. We would like to see that continue.

Lord Razzall: My Lords, given that the Minister has answered the identical question asked about three weeks ago in this House by another of his noble friends, and given that his answer has for certain an outstanding merit for consistency—because he has given the same answer—would he be prepared to answer a slightly wider question that is germane? When will the final decisions on the implementation of the Higgs report be put into place, because that report will be germane to this issue?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is a series of issues which relate to the Higgs report. Many of them depend on the various bodies that are concerned with practice in this area. I cannot give a specific date on when they will be implemented.

Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, given that the Minister has indicated that the Government have already given the power to shareholders to have a say on remuneration, particularly by voting at meetings, will he go a step further and state the Government's view on the huge remuneration in nationalised industries where, after all, the Government are the shareholder? Would he answer that with reference to the former directors of Railtrack?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is always a clear issue of difficulty here, which is that if one is going to have public services which require considerable management skills, in order to obtain people to run those corporations one is required to pay them at least a salary in some proportion to the pay of other people. It is not a sensible strategy to have second rate managers because they are not paid enough.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister, addressing the Local Government Association on 4th July, when he drew attention to the large increase in the salaries earned by chief executives of certain local authorities? He pointed out that they were now earning more than the Prime Minister. Does the Minister agree with Mr Prescott's view that this is having a deleterious effect on wage bills in local government generally and that it is time that proper criteria were established?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I can only say that I have always felt that the Prime Minister was underpaid.

Lord Tebbit: My Lords, will the noble Lord take time to circulate to all the chairmen of remuneration committees of public companies his reply concerning the need to pay market salaries to achieve an appropriate quality of management? That would save them having to write it out themselves before the AGM.

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am not certain that I understand the noble Lord's question. It is always difficult to know in exactly what direction its underhand nature is. Clearly, there is a problem, alluded to by my noble friend, of a constant chasing of every company that says it has to be in the top quartile. The combination of that and remuneration experts who are constantly talking up salaries provoke a difficult situation which will be resolved only when shareholders stand up and say that this nonsense has to stop.

Lord Dubs: My Lords, is my noble friend really convinced that there is a direct relationship between the quality of management and the salary that is paid? Surely it is not as direct as that? If it were, what about this House, which is unpaid?

Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as an unpaid Minister, I am not certain that I can make any comment. I do not believe that there is a direct correlation. There is a correlation where, if one pays significantly less than the market, one will probably get second-rate managers.

Hunting Bill

Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Local Government Bill

Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.

Lord Hanningfield: moved Amendment No. 15:
	After Clause 114, insert the following new clause—
	"PARISH COUNCILS (MODEL CODE OF CONDUCT) ORDER 2001 (1) The Parish Councils (Model Code of Conduct) Order 2001 (S.I. 2001/3576) shall cease to have effect.
	(2) This section shall come into effect on the day on which this Act is passed."

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, Parish Councils are the first tier of government. They do enormous good work for their communities, often for little recognition or reward. They do that because they are made up of public minded citizens with a real sense of community, who wish to make a positive impact on their localities. The parish councils' code of conduct requires all parish councillors to register interests, including their property, their employment and their business interests. It also requires them to register the interests of their spouses and relatives—and possibly friends. Minor infringements of the code can end up with the National Standards Board of England. The code places parish councils under a duty to make written allegations about the conduct of other councillors.
	No-one disputes the need for probity in public life, but there are times when regulations such as these go too far; they are too heavy-handed and wholly disproportionate to that which is being regulated. When that happens it damages the institutions that we all wish to see supported. The situation with parish councils is potentially serious. In May 2002 the University of Aberystwyth published an Economic and Social Research Council report on community governance in England and Wales. That report found that nearly 40 per cent of parish councils did not have enough councillors to fill their seats and that the situation had been in decline for more than a decade. The report concluded:
	"It has been suggested to us that one factor behind the lack of candidates is that being a parish councillor is seen as an onerous task with little reward. The introduction of the new code of conduct may prove a further disincentive".
	For the most part, parish councillors are giving up their time for free to deal with very local issues. They do so because they are committed to the community ethic. We need to encourage more people to take that view. The introduction of this code by the Government has had the opposite effect: it has made a difficult situation worse. It threatens to undermine one of our oldest institutions of government in this country. I hope the Minister will consider the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, we do not support the amendment. It was very interesting that in moving it the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, said that parish councils deal with very local issues. They do. Many have very local interests as well. It is absolutely right that people in the locality should know what those interests are when decisions are being made on their behalf in the area. It does not matter at what level one represents and holds public office; it is absolutely right that one should be transparent about every interest one has. If people are not prepared to serve their local community on that basis, so be it, but I think it is absolutely right that they should declare every interest that is not typical.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, if this is the issue I think it is, people have been bending my ear about it. They have said that it is a ridiculous situation in which people who are experts on a particular subject in an area—say on property or whatever—are not allowed to take part in debates on it. As a result one gets people debating the issue who do not know anything about it, and people who do know about it have to withdraw. The thing is all going slightly over the top. If one just had to declare an interest, it would work.
	Apparently, if I am right—and it may be that people are misinterpreting the regulations—at the moment, one gets the experts having to withdraw, whereas in the House of Lords we declare our interests and you are then accepted as an expert and people listen to you.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I want to reinforce what my noble friend Lord Hanningfield said. I do not think that it will have escaped the notice of Ministers that there has been great concern among parish councillors. That concern is not related to declaring an interest or being open; it is partly to do with the fact that councillors are responsible to the National Standards Board of England. Every other authority is responsible to its own national standards boards in the first instance and then to the National Standards Board of England ultimately if there is a major complaint. That is not so with parish councils. Their overseeing and over-supervising—I suppose I can put it in that way—body is the National Standards Board of England.
	Amendment No. 15 would get rid of that model code. We probably accept that in its place there would need to be another body, but there would need to be some discussion about it because the issue has not only caused offence but has also caused people not to stand for parish councils.
	This model code was not meant to have that effect. In our view it needs reviewing at the very least. The best way of reviewing it is to remove it for the time being and to go back and reconsider it in the light of what parish councils do, who they are, what they give to their community, what levels of budgets by and large most of them are dealing with and what powers by and large they are operating under. I support very much the amendment put forward. I hope that the Minister will be more sympathetic about its withdrawal on the basis that it might be reconsidered in another way.

Lord Bridges: My Lords, I live in a parish where the model code of conduct has produced a disproportionate effect. I am not a parish councillor myself. Nor is my wife. But we made a point of getting hold of and studying this document. I came to the conclusion that there is something of a storm in a teacup about this matter, or, as they say in Italy, "a tempest in a wine glass". It is largely a question of insensitive drafting. When some serving councillors looked carefully at the words, they felt they could not possibly continue.
	If the order is written in a rather more sensitive and less bureaucratic way, I think the problem can be overcome. Clearly, there should be a declaration of interest. I do not think the prose in this model conduct has had quite the right effect. A further effort could produce better results.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I support the amendment and also what my noble friend has just said. When it comes to the smallest unit, one is looking at parish meetings. It may be possible for the Minister to inform the House whether parish meetings are automatically exempt. In my experience the smaller the unit the less possible it is for local people to absorb not only this regulation, but all the other regulations that are coming through.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this issue is interesting. I recall it being raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, some while ago in a parliamentary Question. At that point I had a grain of sympathy for her position. I attended parish meetings when I was growing up. My mother took an interest in our local parish council and should really have been made a parish councillor. But there we are. I could see the point.
	Ultimately, I hold very firmly to the view we have taken. For many of the reasons alluded to by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, we believe very strongly in the importance of parish and town councils. Equally, we believe that those who serve as parish and town councillors should observe the highest standards of conduct. That is probably a view shared by all Members of your Lordships' House; I should be very surprised if it was not.
	The parish code sets out the expected standards and gives, we believe, reassurance to local people that their councillors are behaving correctly, as they would expect any other councillor to behave actually.
	When we took office, there were some 8,700 parish and town councils in England. They varied widely in many ways. It must also be remembered that some are representative of small villages and hamlets, perhaps of fewer than 100 people. Others, like my own Great Bentley, have a population of 2,500. Others are larger still and can represent large towns, perhaps with as many as 70,000 residents. For that reason their budgets vary. The smallest might have a budget of a few hundred pounds; the largest might have one of perhaps more than £1 million. They operate local services; they maintain footpaths; they maintain street lighting; they look after playgrounds and play equipment; and they run community halls. Some run markets. There are some famous markets. Oswestry is one that is run by a local town council. They generate considerable income and revenue. So they are very responsible small units of local government and democracy.
	One of the most important jobs of the councils is to enable that small unit of local governance to make comments on important planning matters. Planning at local level is sometimes a very vexed issue. I doubt whether there are many Members of your Lordships' House who have not at some time had a view on a particular planning matter and become caught up in the crossfire on the debate. These issues can be very controversial.
	Since 1997 over 80 new parishes have been created across England. In line with our recommendations in the rural White Paper, Our countryside: the future, a fair deal for rural England, all parishes have been given further powers and responsibilities. These include powers to provide community transport, to introduce traffic calming and to undertake basic crime prevention measures within the terms of the Local Government and Rating Act 1997.
	With those increased powers comes a need for increased responsibility and openness. The code of conduct for parish councillors was put in place only after extensive consultation. The overwhelming majority of the 700 plus responses to the consultation supported the registration proposals. Even among these parish representatives who responded, a majority felt that the registration requirements were reasonable, clear and workable.
	I accept that sometimes the language of Government is less transparent than we would like. It can feel excessive and bureaucratic. But it is worth remembering that the bodies representing parish councils—the National Association of Local Councils (NALC) and the Association of Larger Local Councillors (ALLC)—were supportive of the proposal that parish councils should be subject to the same registration requirements as principal councils. They deserve to be taken seriously. I understand the concerns that these additional duties and powers may deter some local people from making that important decision to stand for election to local parishes. But I believe that in the main, in the large majority of parish councils, members have accepted the code and have not found it an excessive burden.
	We have done some interesting research on the pattern of complaints and allegations about local members. Between April 2002 and the end of June this year, there were 3,689 allegations of misconduct to the Standards Board. Of those, some 54 per cent related to parish councils. In total, some 1,491 allegations have been sent for investigation. Of those 60 per cent related to parish councils. After investigation the most serious cases were referred to the Adjudication Panel for England. One hundred and thirty-five cases involving parish councils were referred to that panel. Of those, 121 related to a failure to register interests. The penalties are clear. Councillors can face a period of disqualification. Sixty-eight councillors were disqualified for a year, 15 were disqualified or suspended for a shorter period and three received no sanction.
	The sorts of cases being heard are also interesting. I have a number of examples of which I shall give a couple because they are important. There was one member of a town council who sexually harassed and criticised the parish clerk in letters and comments to that council. It was considered that the member had failed to treat the parish clerk with respect and brought his office or authority into disrepute. Who can argue against that being properly investigated so that we uphold standards? It is unarguable that that should be properly investigated.
	There was another case involving the member of a parish council who failed to disclose a prejudicial interest and withdraw from relevant meetings when decisions were made on land adjacent to his house. Those decisions would have had an effect on the value of his property. The member had previously expressed the strongly-held view that the land should not be used for a particular purpose. In the member's mind, the decision that he was involved with, ensured that the land in question could never be used for that purpose. There is a distinct conflict of interest relating to land and property values. The other cases that I have are very similar. We find the argument against the application of the code to parish councils less than compelling because serious conflicts of interest arise.
	The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, raised the question about declaring interests. The code allows councillors to declare a personal interest, remain in the chamber and speak and vote. But they have to declare that personal interest which is right and proper. I do not find the case against the operation of the code compelling. I understand some of the concerns raised by its imposition on parish councils. Those councils have an important job to do. They consider important matters and they can make important comments on major planning decisions. Some parish council members overstep the mark from time to time. It is right that the code of conduct should apply to them so that the highest standards of probity operate even at the lowest level of local government. I hope that having heard that explanation, the Benches opposite will withdraw their amendment.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his answer. I repeat what I said earlier. We have the most local form of local government. We have thousands and thousands of parish councillors. I am a county councillor and the patch that I represent has 12 parish councils. I attend quite a lot of them. They debated this code of conduct. They went along with it after a lot of discussion and unhappiness but accepted it as the law of the land.
	The Minister's reply was far too simple. Everyone wants probity. Anyone should declare any interest in planning issues, and 99.9 per cent of people in local government have done that, whether at parish, district, county or metropolitan level. Obviously one gets the odd person who does not obey the law, whether in local government or any other field. This legislation is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I was involved with Hilary Armstrong, the then Minister for Local Government when this legislation was talked about. I was Vice-Chairman of the Local Government Association. At that stage it was not envisaged to include parish councils in this rigorous code of conduct. We concentrated on more major councils.
	The Minister quoted a lot of ammunition from the Standards Board. Most parish council complaints concerned four-letter words. Therefore the Standards Board has sat for hours and hours at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds just because people complained about name-calling. The cases he quoted were serious, but I repeat that we do not need a sledgehammer to crack a nut. As my noble friend Lady Hanham said, we do not suggest that there should be nothing at all for parish councils. We suggest removing the onerous conditions of the Standards Board and replacing them with something more simple for parish councils. We will reflect on what the Minister has said, but for today I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 117 [Local polls]:
	[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton: moved Amendment No. 17:
	Page 71, line 32, at end insert—
	"( ) In conducting a poll under this section, a local authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the appropriate person on facilitating participation in a poll under this section by such of those polled as are disabled people."

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, Clause 117 confirms the right of a local authority to conduct an advisory poll. The provision creates an express power removing doubt about the freedom of local authorities to hold advisory polls. We want councils to have maximum flexibility in who is polled and how the poll is conducted. We have carefully considered the points made during Grand Committee following the amendment proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Maddock requiring local authorities to have regard to guidance about making local polls accessible to local people. We have tabled the amendment in order to provide for the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly for Wales in Wales to be able to issue guidance, to which local authorities must have regard, on facilitating participation by disabled people in a local poll.
	I hope that this amendment meets with the approval of the Liberal Democrat Benches. I found it rather difficult to defend the position that we had previously. I am much happier with the position we have now reached as I am sure other noble Lords will be. I am grateful to them for the work that they did in bringing forward their original amendment. I hope that this one satisfies the points about which they were concerned. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we are grateful to the Government and the Minister for this amendment. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton. I do not believe she had anticipated contributing to the debate, but she made some very telling points from her own very long and deep electoral experience.
	I have one or two questions to put to the noble Lord. I note that the amendment refers to "any guidance" which means that there is no requirement on the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to issue guidance. I appreciate that it is sensible for the Government and the National Assembly to give themselves an opportunity to consider what is necessary in this area, but if the noble Lord has any news on how the matter might be progressed, I know that that would be considered with interest. I say that because I hope that guidance is issued.
	The second point I should like to make is that, having consulted on the matter, this is an issue that is often raised in the local government world when considering local government legislation. We have become accustomed to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, say, "Of course we are going to consult". I hope that he will say it again today, thus confirming that the disability organisations will be consulted, allowing those who really can make helpful contributions to what should be set out in the guidance to do so.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, noble Lords on this side of the House are very consultation-friendly and of course we shall encourage all views to be brought to us on these matters and that best practice is commonly adopted.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Rooker: moved Amendment No. 18:
	After Clause 117, insert the following new clause—
	"GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRACTICE: POWER TO AMEND ENACTMENTS (1) The appropriate person may by order amend or repeal an enactment relating to a local authority if he considers it appropriate to do so in the light of generally accepted accounting practice as it applies to local government.
	(2) It does not matter for the purposes of subsection (1) whether the enactment itself relates to the accounts of a local authority.
	(3) No order under this section shall be made by the Secretary of State unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
	(4) In this section—
	"enactment" includes an enactment contained in this Act or any Act passed after this Act;
	"local authority" means—
	(a) a body which is a local authority for the purposes of Part 1, or
	(b) a parish council, a community council or charter trustees."

Lord Rooker: My Lords, Amendment No. 18 sets out a new clause regarding accounting practices and the power to amend enactments. I shall take a little time to explain the clause because it has been drafted in response to a point which came up in Grand Committee. Indeed, the matter has also been looked at by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. I want to set out in a proper response the reasons why we have produced this new clause.
	The clause would give the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly for Wales power to amend or repeal, by order, any enactment relating to a local authority in the light of generally accepted accounting practice as it applies to local government.
	It is in part a response to the Liberal Democrat amendment to Clause 18 tabled in Grand Committee, as reported in the Official Report on 4th June at col. GC 220. Clause 18 concerns the definition of a local authority company and the Opposition amendment reflected the pressure from local government for a modern, all-purpose definition of such a company. In resisting that amendment, we acknowledged that it raised an issue of real importance and I promised that we would bring forward our own measure on Report.
	Our new clause will achieve all that the Liberal Democrat Opposition amendment was meant to do. It will enable the definition of a local authority company in Clause 18 to be brought into line with accounting practice. The timetable for that action will depend upon the work being done by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. CIPFA is currently working on a revision to its standard local government accounting code to incorporate a group accounting requirement for companies. As soon as the CIPFA code is ready, the proposed new power would be used to substitute the accounting definition for a statutory one.
	The need to update the definition has arisen in particular as a result of work being taken forward on the Treasury-led Whole of Government Accounts exercise in which the Audit Commission and CIPFA are also closely involved, along with officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Welsh Assembly.
	This initiative to produce a consolidated set of accounts for the whole public sector, as required by the Code for Fiscal Stability, must encompass all central and local government bodies, including not only local authorities but also those companies in which they have a major interest.
	The present definition of a local authority company now in the Bill for the purpose of the new prudential system would not meet the needs of the Whole of Government Accounts exercise. The result is that authorities would have to undertake two different accounting procedures in relation to their companies. This would be onerous and unwelcome, and potentially more unreliable than operating a single set of procedures. So the new power will serve as an important function in solving that problem relating to companies.
	However, the new clause goes further. It allows other aspects of the local government finance system to be harmonised with appropriate accounting practices and to be adapted to reflect future developments without the need for primary legislation. Such a move would implement the Government's policy objective of bringing public sector accounting more into line with generally accepted accounting practice—GAAP. There has also been pressure for a move in this direction from the former Select Committee on Transport, Local Government and the Regions, as well as from the Commons Standing Committee on this Bill.
	As this is a power to amend primary legislation, we propose that orders exercising it should be subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament. We also submitted a memorandum on the new clause to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships' House. In its response, the committee commented that it did not find the delegation or level of scrutiny inappropriate. However, the committee identified two areas where it considered that further clarification might be helpful to the House, and I should now like to address those two issues.
	The committee noted that the clause offers no definition of the term "generally accepted accounting practice" and asked how the scope of the power is in practice to be limited. In leaving the term undefined, we were aware of setting a precedent. The Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 requires the Treasury to use its powers to ensure that departmental resource accounts comply with generally accepted accounting practice subject to adaptations that are necessary in context, although it does not give a definition.
	In fact, the expression has a well-established meaning. In the UK, it means the aggregate of the accounting practices that companies are required to follow in preparing their accounts. It includes elements drawn from the companies Acts and uncodified accounting practice, but its principal source is the practices recommended by the Accounting Standards Board, a body independent of government.
	For local government, accounting practice is established by the code issued by CIPFA. This is a statement of recommended practice within the Accounting Standards Board framework. The Accounting Standards Board will not award that status unless the local government body complies with generally accepted accounting practice and, in particular, any accounting standards issued by the board. The only exception is where local government is unable to comply with generally accepted accounting practice because of statutory constraints. The link with generally accepted accounting practice, a standard that is independent of government, is the key to understanding how the clause will work and how its scope will be limited. I can best explain this by citing some examples.
	First, generally accepted accounting practice itself may change, perhaps to a new standard issued by the Accounting Standards Board. Accounting practice is developing rapidly and a number of important new standards are in the pipeline. CIPFA will wish to incorporate those changes in the local government code, but may find that it cannot do so because of incompatible primary legislation. This is where an order made under the new clause could assist by amending the inconsistent statutory provisions.
	Another possible scenario is where generally accepted accounting practice does not itself change, but CIPFA decides that it wishes to bring the local government code into closer conformity with generally accepted accounting practice. Again, an order made under the new clause may assist by amending statutory provisions that are either directly incompatible or are so closely linked that a difference in definitions would impose a burden on local authorities. That last situation is the one that I have already mentioned in relation to companies.
	This is how we would see the new power being used. In each case, the provision of generally accepted accounting practice which was behind the order should be readily apparent. It would be easy for Parliament to check that we were following this approach when the order came before it for approval. Powers to amend primary legislation by order are always of concern to this House and to the other place, and rightly so, since they can confer extensive freedoms on the government of the day.
	However, the effect of this new clause is significantly different. It only affects legislation to which accounting practice is directly relevant and, when the power is used, the Secretary of State will be giving up his own freedom to devise accounting practices and will be choosing to rely instead on standards imposed by independent accounting bodies.
	The second matter raised by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform was the link between the new power and that already provided for in the Bill under Clause 21. The latter enables the Secretary of State to specify codes that are to count as proper practices. The Committee sought clarification of the relationship between the concepts of proper practices and generally accepted accounting practice. I am happy to confirm, as the Committee requested, that the local government accounting code to which I have referred as the route by which generally accepted accounting practice is imposed on local government is exactly the same code as the one identified under Clause 21(2) as proper practice.
	The two powers work in different ways. Clause 21 ensures that local government accounting practice is compliant with appropriate professional codes—again, normally those issued by CIPFA. However, that power could not be used to amend existing legislation that might be acting as an obstacle to the adoption of proper practices. That is likely to be an issue of increasing concern over the next few years. We know that there are likely to be major developments in national and international accounting practice to improve transparency and reduce the scope for the kind of creative accounting highlighted in the Enron affair. For example, there could be fundamental changes in the treatment of borrowing and investments, the full implications of which may not become clear for some time. Those changes would need to be applied in local government. Clause 21 is unlikely to be adequate on its own for that purpose, but we are confident that the new clause would make that possible.
	In conclusion, I should add that the need for such a power has been recognised by the Local Government Association. In its latest briefing on the Bill, the LGA said that it supports the new clause, as it allows a wider range of definitions to be revised by order in line with accounting practice. The measure also has the support of CIPFA, of course.
	I apologise for taking so long to explain what is a complicated matter, but I felt that the Committee deserved a response and that it was better to put that response in Hansard. Of course, the explanation is also important for those outside who will operate the procedure.
	I beg to move the amendment.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we welcome the amendment. I particularly welcome not having had to have any hand in its drafting or indeed the drafting of the new clause that CIPFA asked me to table in Committee. I am pleased that the matter is moving to a resolution.
	The Minister answered all my questions bar one. In Clause 21(4), "enactment" is defined to include
	"any enactment contained in . . . this Act . . . [or] any Act passed after . . . this Act".
	Will the Minister confirm that the term also extends to any enactment passed before the Bill is enacted? After all, that seems to be where the problem is. I am almost wholly certain that that must be the case, as the clause says not "any enactment means", but "any enactment contained in". However, I would welcome confirmation of that.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. Obviously, one would agree that the Government should fall in line, follow accounting practice that is recommended by the accounting world and be transparent. The powers should be available to allow that to happen.
	I should like some clarity from the Minister, although my point is not so much about the revenue side of accounting. We had a long debate in Grand Committee—we will probably come back to the issue later—about where private finance initiatives sit in the transparency of accounting. PFIs involve both capital and revenue and the issue of where they stand in relation to capital borrowings seems rather fudged. Obviously, PFIs have revenue consequences too. As there is not quite clarity on the matter, perhaps the Minister will give his view on where PFIs sit in relation to the amendment that he has just moved.

Lord Rooker: I will certainly not give my view on that. As I think I said in Committee, Part 1 of the Bill is really for the people whose eyes glaze over when they discuss local government finance—for them, local government finance is the most exciting thing and it gives them a tingle on the back of their neck. It does not do that for me, although I accept that it is incredibly important—we are dealing with billions of pounds of expenditure.
	I regret that I will not go down the PFI route. I do not have a specific answer. If there is some global announcement, I promise that I will write to the noble Lord to clarify the matter.
	One wonders why the term "enactment" is used. I keep defending the parliamentary draftsmen, who are an excellent body of good women and men. The term includes
	"any enactment contained in . . . this Act . . . [or] any Act passed after . . . this Act".
	It also includes any previous Act, so why mention it in the first place? It includes past Acts, this Act and future Acts. The answer to the question posed by the noble Baroness is "yes", as the measure would not work if that was not the case.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Northbourne: moved Amendment No. 19:
	After Clause 119, insert the following new clause—
	"EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF LOCAL AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES (1) No employee whose employer is a local authority or local authority company shall be required to work on both a Saturday and the immediately following Sunday if that person has the care and control of a school-age child.
	(2) On whichever day the employee is not required to work under subsection (1), he shall not be required to work at any time during that day.
	(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), any adult with whom a school-age child customarily lives as part of his or her family has the care and control of that school-age child and where more than one adult qualifies under this test each of them has the care and control.
	(4) In this section—
	"employee" and "employer"—
	(a) in relation to England and Wales, and Scotland, have the same meaning as in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18), and
	(b) in relation to Northern Ireland have the same meaning as in the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996;
	"local authority" means a local authority in any part of the United Kingdom, including the Common Council of the City of London but excluding a parish or community council;
	"local authority company" means a company through which is exercised a power conferred under section 95;
	"school-age child" means a person who has attained the age of five but has not attained the age of eighteen."

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, Amendment No. 19 is relatively modest, but I think that the principle underlying it is important. It seeks to give the legal right to employees of local government to spend at least one whole non-school day per week with their child or children. I shall explain later why I think that it is particularly relevant that local authorities should take this view.
	As I said in Grand Committee, it is in the nation's best interest to provide children with the opportunity to spend time with their parents. I am sure that most noble Lords would agree with that. Much research shows that time spent with a parent or indeed with a long-term, committed carer is crucial to a child's normal, healthy development. For boys of school age, time with a father or a surrogate father is particularly important—time doing normal family things together, such as going to the shops, having a meal, kicking a ball around, flying a kite in the park or just watching television.
	Without the amendment, some employees might and do, in term time, see their children only in the evening, when the children are tired or struggling with homework, and in that dreadful half-hour in the morning before the children rush off to school. During term time, which is most of the year, Saturday and Sunday are the only times when children can spend the whole day with their parents.
	The amendment is not about religious observance; it is about children seeing their parents. Children need their parents. Time in childhood is not refundable. A recent Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, Happy Families? Atypical Work and Its Influence on Family Life shows that about 10 per cent of all parents with children under 14 regularly work on both Saturdays and Sundays. It also shows that between 70 and 80 per cent of those people say that they have no choice in the matter.
	Local authorities employ about 10 per cent of the total workforce, if we exclude education, and they should set an example to all employers in helping employees who are parents to give the nation's children the time and support that they need to develop into the good citizens of tomorrow.
	Both in Grand Committee and in another place, there has been strong support from all sides of the House for the amendment's objectives. Those local authorities that have been consulted have indicated that they can see no insuperable difficulty in applying the provision. Sadly, in spite of the support from all sides of the House and in spite of the Government's declared policy of support for children and parents, the Ministers' response to the proposal, in both Houses, has so far been entirely unhelpful. The objections that were raised in Committee do not in my opinion stand up to scrutiny.
	First, it was held that many local government employees may be required to work on both days of the weekend by the very nature of their employment. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, gave the examples of the emergency services, gritting roads in adverse weather conditions, and security. Emergency and stand-by services would not be affected by the amendment; if they were they could easily be excluded from it. As for other kinds of local authority employment, residential care has been cited. I have some experience of residential care and see no reason why suitable rostering cannot ensure that the amendment's objectives are achieved without any adverse effect on the care given.
	The second argument used by the Minister was that any such provisions would have to apply to the whole workforce in an employment Bill as there would be no particular case for singling out local authorities. The case for singling out local authorities is perfectly clear. As public bodies, they have a special responsibility to set an example. Many local authorities and government departments are already doing that. We must give credit where credit is due. The purpose of the amendment is simply to secure that those who are not already doing that are made seriously to consider their responsibilities.
	Thirdly, the Minister suggested that the Employment Act 2002 included a whole raft of rights specifically for parents, launched on 6th April 2003. He therefore argued that the amendment was unnecessary. I carefully re-read the Minister's speech and the Act. It seems to me that the raft of rights that he describes applies only to children under six or disabled children. I should be grateful if he could confirm that I am right about that. If so, those rights will affect only children between five and six years old. I could find no reference in the Act to weekend working for parents with children of school age, which is the subject of the amendment. Can the Minister give a reference to the Act he mentioned in Committee?
	Finally, the method of argument used by the Government in both Houses has been to list a number of family-friendly policies and employment practices that have been adopted by local authorities. It is an impressive list and the Government and local authorities deserve to be congratulated on it. But nothing in the list deals with the issue addressed by the amendment. Existing authority policies do not offer an answer to the problem addressed by the amendment.
	I have read the Government's survey of a work/life balance in local authorities published in 2001. At no point does it mention the subject of the amendment—the right of local government employees to spend at least one non-school day per week with their children. I suggest to the House that that is an important right that should be given, first, to local authority employees, and then, progressively, to all other employees who have children of that age. I beg to move.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I must record my absolute support for everything the noble Lord said.

Earl Russell: My Lords, this is an attractive and generous amendment. It is the sort of amendment that one would expect from the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, who has thought long, carefully and usefully about the matter. There is no doubt that the issue of work/life balance will demand a great deal more attention from all of us. To take the latest topical example, I cite the report in The Times on Monday from the young solicitors' group recording the fact that an alarmingly large number of women are leaving the legal profession as a result of problems with work/life balance.
	Of course, business may complain of the burdens placed on it. But business can employ no one else but people. Increasingly, the issue of work/life balance is affecting both genders, not yet equally, but the gap is closing so rapidly that that may come within many of our lifetimes. Something needs to be done. Our concern is whether the prescriptive form of the amendment, confining the provision to Saturday and Sunday, is necessarily the best way to approach the matter—especially for separated families, where there is the problem of ensuring access for fathers. I know that the noble Lord has concerned himself with that problem for some time; it requires concern. Friday may often be a crucial part of the package.
	To take a topical example—I am here speaking off the top of my head—this morning, to my great regret, I had to withdraw from accepting an invitation to a wedding in Oxford on Saturday because I could not find the time to do my shopping on Friday, being engaged in an all-day conference. That sort of situation will be repeated in a great many cases. If we do not consider the problem of Fridays, we shall not succeed in the object of the amendment, which is to clear Saturday and Sunday.
	As has been said, there are a great variety of people who do and must work on Saturdays and Sundays. Some arrangements should be considered for finding time for those people to get time off during the rest of the week because they have the same rights and needs to see their children as all the rest of us. If we could find the right words to do it, I should prefer to approach the matter in the spirit of the Renton report on the preparation of legislation—laying down a general principle asserting the need and the obligation to do something to meet it without having prescriptive allocation of particular days of the week. I do not immediately see how that could be done. I find it hard to imagine that it could be compulsory.
	I should like to hear the Minister say that he will set up consultation about how such a thing can be done. Meanwhile, whether or not the noble Lord has got his amendment right—personally, I do not think that he is quite there yet—he has done us a great service by drawing attention to a problem about which we ought to be thinking hard and which will take some time, especially because, like the Irishman's pigs, it keeps changing every time we try to count it. I thank the noble Lord for moving the amendment. If I say that it is not quite right yet, I say so in no unsympathetic spirit.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, as everyone will recognise, the new clause is very similar to one we debated in Grand Committee and to one debated and withdrawn at Report stage in the Commons.
	On the face of it, I have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment. I have to work long hours in your Lordships' House and greatly value my weekends with my children. It is hard to argue against that point. However, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has put his finger on part of the problem—the prescriptive allocation of days of the week—and there are other important considerations. I hope that your Lordships will bear with me while I go carefully through them.
	The new clause is intended to ensure that no local authority employee or employee of a local authority company is required to work on both a Saturday and the immediately following Sunday if that person has the care and control of a school-age child. The clause covers any adult with whom a school-age child customarily lives as part of his or her family, or who has the care and control of that school-age child.
	It is important that I start by setting out what legislation already exists to encourage flexible working. The Government have in place a range of family friendly policies, including a commitment to help to support working parents. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne recognised, on 6th April a new series of new rights specifically for parents were announced, provided through the Employment Act 2002. This includes a new right for parents with children under six or a disabled child under 18 to ask their employers for flexible working arrangements. That law places a duty on employers to consider these requests seriously. The 2002 Act specifies the grounds under which any such request can reasonably be refused.
	The new flexible working law is a "light touch approach" based on best practice. It aims to provide parents with more choice in when they work and how they manage their time while understanding the needs of management, particularly in businesses of a smaller size.
	Prior to the introduction of new rights for flexible working, there was extensive consultation—this is the key—on the needs of working parents. At no stage during the two-year policy development and consultation process were concerns raised specifically about local authority employees, or any parents in any sector, having to work weekends. The consultation process established that parents and employers alike wanted flexibility so that they could make choices and that they did not want rigidity in the legislation.
	The working time directive already ensures that everyone is entitled to at least one day off per week or two days per fortnight. So there is a regulatory framework in place to ensure that employees are treated fairly. It does not just apply to local authority employees.
	In addition, work-life balance for all employees is promoted through the Government's Work-Life Balance campaign and the Challenge Fund, which provides subsidised consultancy advice to assist employers in introducing and developing work-life balance practices and flexible working into their workplaces.
	Sadly, Amendment No. 19 is inconsistent with the Government's general approach to better regulation; that is, we regulate only where there is an identified problem which cannot be solved in another way. Our approach to employment legislation has the specific aim of creating flexibility and choice in the workplace.
	This amendment is based on a supposed need that has not been raised at any point to date. I believe that in practice the amendment has the potential to reduce choice and flexibility in the workplace because it is so specific, inflexible and, to use the term of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, prescriptive. For instance, it will potentially require local authorities radically to reorganise existing shift-working patterns. This may mean that some local authorities, in order to ensure that they do not breach the law, actively prevent all of their employees from working full weekends, even when they are willing to do so and they do not have responsibilities as parents. Such rigid legislation could also potentially have an adverse effect on other flexibility currently offered by local authorities, such as midweek shift patterns or flexi-time or compressed hours that allow employees to take time off at other times when they need it, perhaps because they are carers. The Government aim is to promote flexibility on both sides—for employers and employees.
	I have so far addressed the possible impact of such regulation on the employees, but it is also important that we recognise the potential impact on the services that they might provide. As we have made clear when this clause was previously debated, within local government there will always be situations where staff are required to work at weekends. In regular circumstances this would apply, for example, to residential homes, as has been mentioned, where care needs to be provided on a 24-hour basis, seven days a week. In less regular circumstances, as I think I pointed out in Grand Committee, it would apply to road gritting in adverse weather conditions or to other critical environmental or security emergencies.
	Whether these services can be adequately provided if employees are given the right not to work, the impact on recipients of such services being inadequately staffed and local authorities being unable to meet demand, and the possible cost to local authorities of having to pay premium wages for employing weekend staff do not appear to have been properly addressed or considered.
	I see no special local government case for making the provision sought by the amendment. Local authority workers have full general protection under existing employment law and are as fully protected as any other employee in any other sector. Moreover, local authorities—I think this is recognised by your Lordships' House—are generally at the leading edge and proactive in promoting flexible working and adopting best practice policies in this field.
	The new flexible working law, which is unprecedented across Europe, has only just been introduced. The Government are committed to commence a review of the law's impact in three years' time. The Government are currently developing a monitoring strategy in collaboration with the key stakeholders. It would be inappropriate to bring in another piece of legislation in this area before we have had the opportunity to review how existing legislation is working. If there are perceived to be problems in this specific area—and I repeat we have not had this brought before us—then the review might be an appropriate vehicle for addressing such issues.
	The noble Earl, Lord Russell, made the point that you have to have consultation. He is absolutely right on that point. During such a review it will be important for us to consult the employing organisations and ensure that we get it right if there is a perceived and major problem. We do not see one now although we entirely understand the spirit and the generosity that lies behind the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
	In any event, the impact of the cut-off age of the child is an issue and we will look at that in particular. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, made a point about that.
	We recognise the generosity of spirit behind the amendment. We do not yet have any information that suggests this issue is a major problem. We are impressed that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, wants to encourage good practice and we think that local authorities are generally at the leading edge of that good practice. We see no need at present for this amendment.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he has announced a review of existing legislation, which could be helpful. Will he give an undertaking now that that review will include the needs of children between the ages of six and 18 and their need for good access to their parents on non-school days?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, that is exactly the purpose of a review—to consider such subjects. I am sure that if it is a perceived problem—we have no evidence to suggest it is a major problem for local authority employers—we will include it in that review. I am happy to give such an undertaking.

Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that reply and to those of your Lordships who have taken part in the debate.
	As usual the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has been most helpful and has also put his finger on some weaknesses in this amendment. The difficulty which neither the noble Earl nor the Minister addressed is that children are out of school only in the holidays and on Saturday and Sunday. It may be that flexible school hours could be looked at some time.
	It is no good the Government saying that they are doing other things. They are doing other things and I congratulate them. The point of this amendment is that it addresses a particular issue.
	It is possible that the results I seek to achieve could be achieved through guidance to local authorities urging them to pay attention to the importance of the time between parents and children and the necessity, as school programmes stand, for parents to be available either on a Saturday or Sunday during term time.
	Next week we shall debate the Second Reading of the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. I shall make then, as I make now, the point that there is no better way to encourage anti-social behaviour in young people than to deprive them of the time and attention of their parents, especially their fathers. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 121 [Repeal of prohibition on promotion of homosexuality]:

Baroness Blatch: moved Amendment No. 20:
	Page 74, line 30, at beginning insert "Subject to the terms of section 127(2A),"

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 20, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 25, 88 and 91.
	Once again, sadly, Section 28 has become something of a political football. I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association and I was shocked, therefore, to receive—without a covering letter and in a House of Lords envelope—a briefing paper for this debate which contained inaccuracies and was written on Local Government Association headed notepaper. Having discussed the matter with the chief executive of the Local Government Association, he informed me that the LGA did not circulate the paper. The noble Lord, Lord Alli, did so, using House of Lords facilities and its materials.
	I was told that the person who drafted the paper did not follow the proper procedures, including a requirement to clear the paper with the LGA public affairs office. The person has been interviewed and disciplinary proceedings are likely to follow. I have even heard that a council was telephoned by someone from the LGA who was looking for material to strengthen the brief. He said:
	"We are doing a job on Lady Blatch".
	The Local Government Association conservative group has put out a press release stating that it did not lend its support to the briefing—in fact it was not even consulted about the brief—and therefore it is not the all-party brief that has been claimed. The chief executive criticised the tone of the paper and said that it has never been LGA policy to criticise individual Peers by name. As I am criticised in the paper by name, I have received a fulsome apology from the chief executive. He went on to say that someone had got it wrong and that he was dealing with it as a disciplinary matter.
	The Local Government Association has been brought into disrepute and Members of the House have been misled. I deeply regret that.

Lord Alli: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. If it will be helpful, perhaps I can shed some light on the LGA briefing. I have read it. It was sent to me as a—

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Alli, almost certainly will be speaking in the debate and he will have an opportunity to rebut anything that I have said. I am not giving way because the noble Lord will have an opportunity to speak during the debate.
	I am sorry to use precious time on this issue but, given the wide distribution of the briefing paper and the fact that many people will have been influenced by it, it is important to set it in context and to place it on the record.
	Today it is my wish to focus on what has always been my concern and that of my late friend Lady Young—the protection of children. Mine is a simple mission in the debate. It is to protect children from the worst form of sex education. My amendments will achieve that by giving power to parents to make judgments about the sex education of their children and what they receive in school.
	My views on the issue of Section 28 are well known, but three concerns have led me to table alternative amendments which would replace Section 28. First, although there has been much misunderstanding about Section 28—and as long as the perception of this clause rather than the reality is responsible for endless challenges in Parliament—I thought that it would be helpful to find a way of addressing the more sensitive issues without in any way compromising the protection of children.
	My second concern is that Section 28 was not drafted to protect children from unacceptable health authority materials, including inappropriate heterosexual materials, or from visiting sex educators and advisers, who assist in schools at no cost to local authorities.
	My third concern, which has led me to table an alternative amendment, is that for many parents Section 28 does not provide a simple remedy. Once Section 28 has been breached, the only routes available to parents are the very costly judicial review procedures, the intervention of the district auditor or the monitoring officer of the local authority. None of those options is very easy for an ordinary parent to resort to. It is for these reasons that I have tabled amendments which I believe should be supported even by those who wish to see Section 28 repealed.
	If Section 28 is repealed—as, indeed, it would be under my amendments—we must strengthen the protection of children. It is not enough to say that the guidance issued under the Learning and Skills Act provides sufficient safeguards. For example, it is true that local authorities and schools must have regard to the guidance—but that does not oblige them to comply with it. As your Lordships will know, guidance can be considered but then ignored quite legitimately. The law requires schools and local authorities only to have "regard to" the guidance. As one local authority-funded sex education publication has already pointed out, to have "regard to" does not mean to "adhere to".
	My amendments do not prohibit anything. Instead, they devolve decisions about sex education down to school level and, for the first time, give parents a role, in law, to determine the contents of sex education for their children. My amendments rely entirely on the good sense of parents and on the fact that they, above all other people, understand what is in the best interests of their own children.
	I accept that schools are expected to consult parents about the content of sex education. However, the strength of my amendments is that they give parents a legal right to be consulted about the sex education policy of a school and its method of delivery, and to have information about and access to the materials used. They will also have a legal right to know the school policy on the use of visiting sex educators and advisers who are not teachers in the school.
	As a last resort, if all the normal grievance procedures fail, 10 per cent or more of registered parents can trigger a ballot of parents within the school. If the ballot is supported by a majority, the school is obliged to comply with the parents' wishes.
	Existing government guidance on sex education advocates that schools should seek to work in partnership with parents. I absolutely agree with that. In the main, most schools will do that most of the time. I also believe that most problems which occur will, under my amendments, be resolved at school level. However, we have a duty to protect those children in schools where this is not the case. That is why I believe that the best way forward is to strengthen the power of parents to make judgments about what is best for their own children. As I have said, if 10 per cent or more of parents are deeply unhappy with the content or delivery of sex education then—I repeat—as a last resort, a ballot of parents is an appropriate way to resolve the issue.
	I said that Section 28 must not be repealed without safeguards being put in its place. The Government argue that no further safeguards are necessary. The Minister will no doubt argue that the guidance on sex education is sufficient. But there are problems with the guidance. Consider what some local authorities have recommended for the teaching of sex education while, at the same time, claiming to comply with the guidance.
	Very few parents would knowingly allow their seven year-old child to participate in a class discussion of anal intercourse, yet there are local authorities that recommend a sex education pack outlining just that. Very few parents would allow their 11 year-old child to take part in a teacher-led discussion on the use of sexual toys, sadism, masochism, dressing up and tying up, involving multiple partners in sex at one time and other activities which, quite frankly, I cannot bring myself to repeat on the Floor of the House, yet there are local authorities which recommend such resources. For the benefit of those noble Lords who are laughing, I should say that I do not find such matters amusing.
	The latter lesson I described is to be found in a pack called Taking Sex Seriously. Many more such lessons can be found in that publication. I hope that noble Lords will agree that inviting children of 11-plus to discuss sado- masochism, bondage and sex orgies is not appropriate sex education. It is frankly astounding that such appalling resources are being recommended for use in schools by local authorities. To my knowledge, Taking Sex Seriously is currently recommended by a number of local authorities. Despite campaigning letters to the contrary, this information is irrefutable.
	However, I know that many local councillors do not even know what council employees are recommending in their names. In fact it happened to one quite recently, who was named in the publicity surrounding this issue. This is all the more reason for giving parents a legal right to disclosure and consultation.
	Advisory teachers working for Brighton and Hove and East Sussex Councils specifically recommend that all secondary schools should obtain a copy of Taking Sex Seriously. They claim that their advice to schools is based on the Government's own guidelines.
	Taking Sex Seriously is not the only outrageous resource being recommended to teachers. There is, for example, the video pack "Beyond a Phase", which suggests to pupils aged 13 and over:
	"Try experimenting with boys and girls and see who you feel most comfortable with".
	If they knew that this suggestion had been made to their sons or daughters, most parents would be very angry.
	"Beyond a Phase" is currently recommended by Gloucestershire County Council and in response to recent criticisms the council defended its actions by quoting previous government guidance. There can surely be only one conclusion. There is a problem and guidance alone will not solve it.
	Although no doubt the Minister will argue that it is schools and not local authorities that are responsible for sex education, local authorities are highly influential. In most cases they are the employers of the teachers in schools. Local authorities provide teachers with courses on how to teach sex education and produce sex education guidance for teachers. Some local authorities fund advisory teachers for personal, social and health education, specifically to write sex education material or to advise teachers how to teach sex education.
	My amendment to Clause 121 makes it clear that the repeal of Section 28 is subject to the terms of my new subsection (2A) to Clause 127, which deals with commencement dates for the Bill. My amendment therefore stipulates that the repeal of Section 28 can only take place when arrangements are in place that establish a right for parents to view the materials used in sex education and to be consulted when schools set a policy on the use of people who are not teachers to take sex education lessons. That does happen in some schools and there have been problems when third parties who are not teachers make poor judgments about the kind of materials that are suitable for children. Schools that use staff or volunteers from outside agencies should have a policy about doing so and ensure that arrangements are in place to inform parents of their new rights and to update government guidance.
	A vote against my amendments would be a vote against giving parents a right in law to be consulted by schools about the content and delivery of, and the materials used in, sex education.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, but would she not agree that schools are already required by law to have parents on the governing body, which has oversight of the sex education curriculum? Therefore, those parents already have a right to inspect material and develop policy.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am coming to the very point that the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, has just made.
	Surely, all that I suggest is perfectly reasonable. Why should parents not enjoy a legal right to be consulted and to see the materials used? My amendments would strengthen the partnership between parents and schools and, having discussed them with many in education and local government, I have been heartened by the support for this approach.
	My amendment would come after Clause 121. In Clause 117 the Government have decided to give local authorities a new legal power to conduct polls on the provision of local services. Clearly, the provision of education has to be one such service, and in particular the provision of sex education. Under Clause 117—the Government's own clause—local authorities can choose who is polled and the questions asked. Under my new clause, once the requirements set out in the amendment are met a local authority is required to exercise its powers under Clause 117 to carry out a poll of parents on the sex education provided at their children's school.
	I see the arrangements for a poll of parents as an important measure of last resort. Parents who are concerned about their children's sex education will be able—and this is the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen—to speak formally or informally to their class teacher, head of department, head teacher, parent governors and the governors, and to all those who have a responsibility. In that way, most concerns will be resolved. Having a legal right to be consulted and to view materials will also minimise the need to take such matters further.
	Sadly, at the end of the day there are some people who advocate the use of the kind of wholly inappropriate material from which I quoted earlier, and there are those who wrote that awful material in the first place. There are advisory teachers who are currently recommending it to schools. For 10 per cent or more parents to wish to resort to a ballot, there would have to be deep dissatisfaction among parents and a widespread desire for the school to change its sex education policy. For clarification, sex education within the national curriculum is not affected by my amendments. No vote is allowed on the content of the national curriculum.
	When a council has received a valid petition consistent with the conditions in subsections (2), (3), (4) and (6), the council must call a poll within two months. If the proposition is successful, a further three months is allowed to ensure that the school complies with the wishes of parents.
	My amendment does not create a need for a new register of parents because schools are already required to do this by law. A register of parents is already needed to hold elections for parent governors, for example. My proposed new subsection (2)(c) stipulates that a poll can only be held once every two years.
	On a point of interest, I could not help noting that, last week, the Government announced that there would be local ballots to decide who should receive money from the National Lottery. How can it be that the Government encourage local ballots on the lottery and yet oppose ballots of parents on the quality of their own children's sex education?
	I hope that when noble Lords speak to my amendments, they will confine themselves to the case that I have made and not speak about issues that I have not raised. My package of amendments provides a safeguard for children that should be in place following the repeal of Section 28. They enshrine legal rights for parents and protection for children from some materials and lesson plans that frankly border on the pornographic.
	As I said, to oppose my amendments would be to deny greater protection for children and more power to parents. I hope that noble Lords will agree that I have not sought to engage in the sterile and divisive debate about being pro or anti-homosexuality. My concern is exclusively for the education and well-being of children. In this, I have been supported by many Members of this House, both present and those who are unable to be here today, but, in particular, by thousands of teachers, many professionals, and parents and grandparents from the length and breadth of this country. It is our duty to support them and their children, and that is what I invite noble Lords to do. I beg to move.

Lord Palmer: My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and after such a powerful contribution it is difficult to say very much else. I believe that many of your Lordships will have received a letter, probably this morning, from the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and others urging support for the repeal of Section 28 and attacking the Christian Institute. I have yet to see any evidence that the Christian Institute briefings are misleading as is alleged. I have always found its material to be rigorously researched and thoroughly reliable.
	I was deeply shocked to receive such a letter from such eminent people and even one from a right reverend Prelate for whom I have the greatest respect, and indeed, affection. The letter calls for the repeal of Section 28. The amendments to which I have put my name, of course, allow the repeal, subject to certain conditions. I hope that noble Lords who put their name to the letter will be willing, therefore, to look at these amendments with an open mind.
	I support the amendments because I believe that there is a genuine need for strong, statutory safeguards to protect children from inappropriate sex education. Vague guidance and warm words from the Minister are simply not enough. Many people who have had sight of some of the ghastly sex education material recommended by various councils may have been surprised that such material even exists. That it should also be recommended by local authorities—bodies with statutory responsibilities for schools—is even more appalling.
	I shall not begin to repeat what I said in Grand Committee. Suffice it to say that we have learned in Scotland that there are people in positions of influence in education who are prepared to recommend some awful sex education material for use with young people. Recommendations made by Learning and Teaching Scotland, the Scottish Executive's education quango, caused such a furore among parents that 12,000 of them signed a petition to the Scottish Parliament calling for them to be withdrawn. The parliamentary Education Committee sympathised with their concerns, and, after many months of pressure, the chairman of Learning and Teaching Scotland conceded that some of the resources are unfit for use with young people.
	Of course, in a highly charged debate such as this, whenever any noble Lord cites an example of a resource or a recommendation which others find shocking, some people will try to split hairs about the status of the resource or what the council meant by its recommendation. Ultimately, however, if there really are people producing this sort of material with the intention that it should be used in school sex education, I believe that we must do everything we can to ensure that they are unsuccessful. That is why I support these amendments. They are, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said, intended purely to support the protection of children. Even with Section 28 in place, the sorts of powers which her amendments give to parents would always have been a good idea. If Section 28 is to be removed, I believe that the amendments are absolutely essential.
	I would also urge noble Lords who support Section 28 to support these amendments as a realistic alternative—one which addresses all inappropriate sex education, not just material to do with homosexuality. I would also urge noble Lords who oppose Section 28 to support these amendments. There is certainly no way in which they can be thought as anti-homosexual. The amendments make no statements about sexual preferences at all. Instead, they move parents closer to the centre of the circle when it comes to deciding sex education policy. That can only be a sensible and logical idea. It places more powers in their hands to ensure that the sex education that their children receive is appropriate.
	Who would deny parents a greater role in the sex education given to their own children? I believe that very few of us would. Who would deny them the right to view the material to be used? Who would deny them a legal right to be consulted? Who would refuse them a right ultimately to vote on the sex education policy in their child's school? I believe that the noble Baroness ought to be congratulated. She has sought to provide new safeguards which protect children by bringing in greater influence from their parents. I can see no good reason why her amendments should not attract the broadest possible support from all sides of your Lordships' House.

Lord Alli: My Lords, if I may, I should like first to deal with the LGA briefing which the noble Baroness mentioned. I did indeed circulate that briefing. As I understand it, it was prepared for me and not for public consumption. I also understand that the LGA did not intend it to be circulated, but I did not know that at the time. Therefore, I circulated it to Peers who I thought would be interested. If I have caused any offence, I apologise unreservedly. I have already written to the noble Baroness, as she knows. If I have caused her any particular offence, I wish to apologise unreservedly.
	This debate arouses a huge amount of passion and controversy. However, it has long since lost any sense of proportion, reason or logic. It has long since lost any basis in fact. This debate has become about two sets of values—values which come into conflict on issues to do with sexuality, and in particular if it has something to do with children or the protection of children. The noble Baroness's amendment not only seeks to reinstate Section 28 but also to put in place what is surely an unworkable system for both teachers and parents. My Lords, I ask you, is this debate to be reproduced in every school throughout the land, with headmasters, teachers and governors trying to adjudicate between warring parents trying to get votes? How would that help children?
	Noble Lords have seen today, as in previous debates, the continued polarisation of the issues. In essence, the argument boils down to one of two truths. First, does Section 28 protect children in schools from inappropriate materials and, in doing so, stop loony councils from an overdose of political correctness? Secondly, does Section 28, in the light of the Learning and Skills Act, become redundant and serve only as another piece of discrimination against homosexuals?
	Many smokescreens are erected by those in pursuit of a cause. In the one corner there is the Christian Institute which tries to dress up its cause in religion and prey on people's fear for their children, citing bogus material as their evidence.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords—

Lord Alli: In the other corner—

Noble Lords: Order.

Lord Alli: I am not giving way to the noble Baroness, my Lords.
	In the other corner are gay organisations with their own equality agenda. To the many in this House who are in neither of the two camps, may I say that I have a huge sympathy for you for what has become an almost annual if not monthly event? I understand that if you vote against the repeal of Section 28 you will be labelled as a bad Christian.

Lord Elton: My Lords, there is no proposal to do as the noble Lord suggests. My noble friend is not proposing to reinstate Section 28.

Lord Alli: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, I shall come to that very point.
	I understand that some noble Lords who vote against the repeal of Section 28 will, even if they are bishops, be labelled as bad Christians, and possibly as uncaring about the safety of our children. And if they vote for the retention of Section 28, they will be condemned as homophobic and endorsing gay bullying. Section 28 is just one of those issues. It was designed to divide and it is unsurprising that it does just that.
	We all take our predictable paths. It is bit like a bad soap opera—we deliver our lines, and in some cases we play to the camera. However, I ask noble Lords the same questions as others will no doubt pose later today. Why would the NSPCC, Childline, the Children's Legal Centre, the Children's Rights Alliance, the National Children's Home, the National Youth Agency and the Children's Society all write to noble Lords setting out their support for the repeal of Section 28? Could they be so misguided as to believe that the repeal of Section 28 will leave schools exposed to an onslaught of inappropriate material?
	Those organisations have considered this issue in detail, discussed it and agreed to put their views on paper and in public. They are not a few individuals writing letters with anecdotal evidence, trying to undermine an organisational response. Those organisations have reputations that we have learned to trust. This is not a group of trendy, left-wing, politically correct individuals. These are people who have dedicated their lives to helping, teaching and working with children.
	Why would an overwhelming majority of MPs vote for the repeal of Section 28 if they believed that it would harm vulnerable children?

Lord Elton: My Lords, I should be grateful if the noble Lord would answer the point. There is no proposal to reinstate Section 28, which has actually already been removed.

Lord Alli: My Lords, I shall come to that very point.

Noble Lords: Oh!

Lord Alli: Then let me deal with it directly, my Lords. The enactment of the repeal would depend on a set of criteria of which the Secretary of State must be satisfied. However, the Secretary of State can never be satisfied that all those conditions are in place over the period. As noble Lords know, this is effectively a wrecking amendment. Nobody here believes that it is anything but that.
	Perhaps I may inform the House why those people support the repeal. It is because they understand that sex education in schools is not governed by Section 28. No matter how many times the other side repeat it, it does not make it true. They know that maintained schools must have a written policy on school sex education. Because of Section 404 of the Sex Education Act 1996, they know that governing bodies of all secondary schools are required to provide a programme of sex education which is offered to pupils above the age of 16. Because of Section 352 of the Education Act 1996, they know that the governing body and head teachers must ensure that sex education encourages people to have due regard to moral considerations and the value of family life. Because of Section 403 of the Education Act 1996, they know that parents have the right to withdraw their children from all or part of sex education. Because of Section 405 of the Education Act 1996, they know that the schools are under a duty to promote the education guidelines of the Learning and Skills Act.
	In fact, we have discussed this countless times in connection with that legislation. I am sorry that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn is not in his place. He sought to find a compromise and a way through via an amendment to satisfy the House on that very issue. He said,
	"In an ideal world, these issues would be expressed more precisely. But in relation to the government amendment, there has been considerable discussion to find the appropriate words to deal with these matters and it is certainly a considerable advance on Section 28, which does not at all protect children in school from these matters".

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, can the noble Lord direct his attention at some time in his speech to the reasoning of my noble friend Lady Blatch and explain where and why it was defective?

Lord Alli: My Lords, I would rather get on because others wish to speak and I do not believe that I should make the noble Baroness's arguments for her. We must take heed of the organisations and professionals as well as the countless people who tell us that they work with children.
	Section 28 is about one group of people trying to use the law to embody their own prejudices. Section 28 has no place in the protection of children, let alone in a modern, civilised society.
	I turn to the specifics of the noble Baroness's amendment. As I said, it disguises the fact that in effect it prevents the repeal of Section 28 happening until the Secretary of State is satisfied that he has done everything in her amendment. It also seeks to use parental choice as a cloak under which to disguise what is simply an amendment to prevent the repeal of Section 28. The amendment is unworkable. It is simply a wrecking amendment.
	I have one final request. Abstention, while welcome, may not see the back of Section 28. I believe that it will not be repealed without noble Lords walking through the Lobby and voting for the repeal. The measure is supported by a powerful and, in my view, compelling coalition of children's organisations, Christians, Labour, Conservative and Liberal councillors and MPs. It is a coalition which cares about children and their welfare and most of all it is a cross-party coalition. Please support that coalition and vote down this amendment.

Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I wonder whether he has seen the letter from the care organisation, Christian Action Research and Education, which has reached me and I imagine a number of Members of this House, which states quite clearly,
	"Baroness Blatch has tabled a straightforward amendment to re-institute Section 28".
	They certainly believe that that is what her amendments do and I suspect that a large number of people outside believe so too.

Lord Alli: My Lords, I have seen it. I believe that it is an accurate portrayal of the amendment.

Lord Elton: My Lords, I understand that that letter was written before the amendments in question were tabled. I had not intended to speak, but it is really important that I should ask your Lordships to address the question before the House, which is not whether Section 28 should be repealed or not, but whether it should be repealed before certain fairly simple requirements are met.
	It is not a wrecking amendment because, as anyone can see by reading the two substantial amendments in the group, the process set in place is simple. The process is designed to enable worried parents to have a final say in the way their children are taught. There is no question but that parents are worried and that the material to which my noble friend has referred and quoted, is in circulation or is intended to be acted on, as is clear from the note she circulated in reply to that of the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and which he spoke to earlier.
	The question, therefore, is simply whether Section 28 should be repealed and nothing else put in its place or whether parents who are already anxious and who will be rendered much more so by the repeal of Section 28 should be given the power to speak in a forum in which what they say will have effect; that is to say, in the forum of the school in which they are taught.
	There are so many vibrations in the Chamber at the moment, which relate to an earlier debate about homosexual practices. This is not about that, but all sexual practices, some of which are extremely odd. Some of the non-homosexual ones are perhaps less appetising than anything. It seems a natural thing to give reassurance to parents that their children will be brought up as they want and not as some activist in any cause, heterosexual, homosexual or whatever, believes is fit for them. Parents have the ultimate responsibility. My noble friend's amendments give them the means of fulfilling that responsibility. I hope that your Lordships will go through the Lobby with my noble friend and not vote against her.

Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I shall speak very briefly. My credentials are that I have taught sex education and I have been a school governor for many years. I suggest that the amendments before us today, for all that they are designed to clarify a situation, would simply compound the confusion about teaching sex education and would not serve parents, teachers or governors well.
	There is much talk about protecting children from unsavoury resources. I shall comment on that later. What concerns me is that the sex education of many young people is inadequate. They are left vulnerable to disease, relationship problems and susceptibility to abuse. This is not protection, but negligence.
	I was at a conference this week where 450 young people were discussing sexual health. The question was put to them about the adequacy of their sex education. Only 11 out of 450 thought it was "good". One quotation from the conference was, "They told us what the bits were called and the teacher was a nervous wreck". No wonder if teachers are left in confusion about what they can and cannot teach. Ofsted reports point out that sex and relationships education should be taught by teachers who are confident as well as informed.
	The statistics on sexual health speak for themselves and for our woeful failure to educate young people. One in 10 women have Chlamydia: many do not know it. Over 40 per cent of these women are under 20. Over 17,000 men had gonorrhoea last year. We have an unprecedented rise in other sexually transmitted infections. HIV/AIDS rates are rising, especially among young gay men. It is simply impractical to recommend the married state and total fidelity to one's partner being the only viable state. We have to be pragmatic and realistic.
	We have heard today and in earlier debates about the unsuitability of resources being produced for schools. I have seen some such materials. Some were not produced for children in the first place. I contacted several teachers and asked about the resources. Ninety-nine per cent of the teachers I spoke to had never heard of them, let alone used them. What evidence is there that such materials are being used in schools?
	Let us not be dragged into thinking that there is a plot in schools to corrupt young people—there is not. Let us not be dragged into thinking that unsavoury materials are rife in our classrooms. They are not. Sex and relationships education is probably the most policed area of the curriculum and the most subject to recommendations and guidance. Parental and pupil involvement in assessing resources has increased with the positive support offered by the national healthy schools standards scheme and the DfES sexual relationships guidance.
	The Learning and Skills Act 2000, mentioned previously, requires that young people learn about the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children; and that pupils are protected from teaching and materials that are inappropriate having regard to the age, religion and cultural background of the pupils concerned. What could be stronger?
	I want to stress that governing bodies have a number of parents as members and that they have power. Governing bodies are charged with the oversight of sex and relationships education. They are already expected to ensure the involvement of parents, young people, health and other professionals in developing policies on sex and relationships education.
	Parents already have all the rights about which the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, is so concerned. I am a school governor and I know that that is precisely what happens. My governing body would be appalled by the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. We would not want to spend our time conducting polls of parents. There are already parents on the governing body and we know what happens in the curriculum.
	I have just received a communication from the chair of governors of the City of Portsmouth Girls' School, who says that the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would:
	"add to teachers' workload significantly . . . [and] undermines the role and responsibilities of Governors which is both insulting and offensive to the largest voluntary force this country has".
	There is no need for the amendment before us. Spreading contention and confusion about sex education will damage even further the confidence of professionals. What they require is training, which is already being made available to deliver this area of the curriculum.
	We must not deny our young people the information and skills to protect themselves and to form fulfilling relationships. We must reject the amendment.

Baroness Richardson of Calow: My Lords, when "Newsnight" finished yesterday evening I looked to see what else I might watch. I could have watched a programme on whale hunting, or I could have turned to Channel 4, where in "Sex Tips for Girls" two unsatisfied women sign their boyfriends up for sex lessons to learn oral sex technique; or I might have chosen Living TV, which offered "Sex Toys": the easy guide to fulfilling one's sexual fantasies, followed by "Undressing", another easy guide to sexual fantasies. In the event I switched off in order to think what I might say today.
	It is ludicrous to suggest that children and young people are waiting for local authorities to produce sexually explicit material with which to corrupt them. Such material is readily available. What young people need is to be taught how to respond to the material thrust at them from all sources. Any material produced by local authorities is already filtered by the time it reaches children. It is filtered by local authorities, which have community representatives available. It is filtered primarily by the governing bodies of schools that have responsibility to see what is used in sex education classes.
	I am not convinced by arguments that parents know better than teachers. Many parents have failed their children dismally in carrying out sex education at home, which is why it is so important for sex education policy to be carefully worked out by governors, teachers and parents, who are all involved in policy and not the minutiae of what is dealt with in the classroom.
	Sexual orientation is a given; it cannot be caught or taught, and even if promotional material were to be made available, it would be ineffective. But sexual behaviour needs to be discussed. To allow in class only responsible heterosexual behaviour to be the focus of sex education is to deny those of homosexual orientation the opportunity to be helped towards a responsible use of their own sexuality. Parents are singularly bad at recognising the homosexual orientation of their children and children need a safe place in which to discuss this. Teachers must be allowed to introduce discussion of such matters without fear of prosecution.
	Education is about giving the tools for good judgment. It is about protecting young people by promoting respect for difference and about valuing themselves and one another and being able to evaluate the materials that come into their hands. To suggest that there are some things that should not be discussed openly is to create a climate of secrecy that could lead to bullying and allow abuse to go unreported.
	Either to leave Section 28 in force or simply to replace it with a poll of parents is not responsible behaviour. To leave it in force is an offence not only to lesbians and gays but to the integrity and judgment of all involved in education. It should be repealed.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, this is the first time that I have participated in a debate on this subject and it has been a privilege to follow the noble Baronesses who have just spoken. I have followed the issue with some interest over the years as a member of your Lordships' House, as a county councillor in Suffolk, part of a local education authority; but above all, as the mother of two teenage children with whom I discussed the issue yesterday evening, because I thought it was interesting to get the perspective of at least two of the young people about whom we all purport to know and understand so much.
	What originally moved me to speak was the briefing material that I received from the Christian Institute, which has been widely quoted. When I read it I was shocked. I was shocked by the way in which material that was never intended to be seen by young people was presented as though it had been, and I was shocked by the selective and partial use of out-of-context quotes, in a way that was designed deliberately to shock and outrage.
	This dodgy dossier contains a number of myths. The first is the myth that somehow wholly unsuitable materials are being distributed widescale across our schools. In my 12 years on a local education authority I have never seen such material distributed to children, nor has a teacher, parent or governor ever come to me and expressed such concerns. I am deeply offended by the suggestion that a local authority run by whichever party, or that teachers, youth workers and organisations dedicated to young people are all somehow hell bent on corrupting the young people to whom they have dedicated their professional lives.
	The second myth being propounded is that local authorities are retaining responsibility for sex education. That is simply not true. The teaching of sex education is a matter for school governors and parents. I find it ironic that someone who has rightly championed the freedom of schools from central control should seek to add to that control by imposing compulsory ballots on schools that in the main do not want them.
	Local authorities produce guidance, but they do so as a result of demand from teachers, many of whom are struggling to know how to deal with those difficult topics. Goodness knows, anyone who has ever sat down with their children and tried to tell them the facts of life knows how excruciating it can be for both parties. Teachers find it very difficult, and the guidance is often produced as a response to their needs.
	I also received the briefing from the chair of the board of governors. I believe that his final comment, concerning the question of balance being "insulting and offensive" to his profession, is very telling.
	The third, and to my mind most invidious, myth is that somehow children will be protected by ignorance. There is no doubt that sex can be a risky business. Unwanted pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases and psychological damage are issues dealt with by health professionals every day. But whispered conversations behind the bike sheds, a furtive exploration of porn sites on the Internet or, indeed, mainstream television channels leave young people in ignorance of the real facts of life, and it leaves them more and not less vulnerable to damage in the future. Unless responsible sex education takes place under appropriate circumstances, we leave them highly vulnerable.
	Therefore, sex education must—for practical purposes if for no other—pay heed to the reality that there is a variety of sexual activity out there. We cannot simply teach activities which the noble Baroness or anyone else regards as mainstream or acceptable.
	It is very difficult for any parent to consider his or her adolescent offspring as sexually active beings. It is probably even more difficult for the offspring to think about their parents in that light. Therefore, on either side it cannot be relied upon that sex education between parents and children will, indeed, be adequate and address these issues.
	I am the mother of two teenage children and I desperately want them and their friends to receive an education which prepares them for a life in which they are happy and confident in themselves and their sexuality. I want them to learn to respect the differences found in other people's faith, belief, culture and sexuality. I want them to make reasoned judgments about danger and risk and I do not want them to lead their lives in fear through ignorance and scaremongering. What I want for them, I want for all children.
	I have listened very carefully to the many organisations which specialise in the care of young people and which want to see Section 28 repealed. They do not want to see anything that will delay that repeal. The Children's Society, the NSPCC, Childline and the National Children's Bureau all want to see Section 28 repealed as soon as possible. Those are the very organisations in which we have entrusted the care of our most vulnerable people, and we should listen to them.

Lord Elder: My Lords, I would not normally have spoken in this debate, and I feel privileged to follow the previous two speakers. However, it seems to me that I should say that I am in favour of the abolition of Section 28, unencumbered by the proposals put forward in these amendments.
	Listening to some of the arguments in favour of the amendments causes me to reflect on what happened north of the Border when Section 2A—the equivalent section—was abolished by the Scottish Parliament. The original intention had been to go ahead with abolition at the same time as Section 28 was abolished south of the Border, but the decision here by this House not to support abolition meant that Scotland went alone. There followed in Scotland a consultation exercise, and the main Churches did not object to the proposal to repeal. In particular, initially the Catholic Church made no move to oppose it. There were good reasons for that.
	Section 2A had never been used in a court of law to protect children. The existing procedures achieved that. From the first announcement of the intention to repeal, a review of existing guidelines was offered to reassure those who had concerns. There was a feeling that the issue had become one of whether or not teachers and head teachers could be trusted to make sensible decisions. There was, and is, no reason to doubt that.
	At the very end of the eight-week consultation period, a group of individuals, representing a rather narrow and far from liberal view of society, intervened and applied great pressure on others with a campaign based on fear and misinformation. Some of those fears and the misinformation have reappeared in this debate. It led to a period of great uncertainty.
	However, the doubts raised by them were dealt with to the satisfaction of all the other groups. The working group, on which there was very broad representation, reached agreement on guidelines about the future teaching on this difficult range of subjects. Those guidelines have been very generally accepted. None of the largest Churches in Scotland—not the Catholic Church, the Church of Scotland or the Episcopalian Church—is calling for the section, or one like it, to be reintroduced. Noble Lords should bear that in mind when they read the far more narrow views expressed by the Christian Institute.
	Throughout the process of abolition in Scotland, many extravagant views were expressed about the disasters that would follow. Some of them have been reflected here, but none has come to pass. The confidence in the good sense of the teaching profession and in the guidelines was well placed. I have no doubt that the same would be the case in England. And there were many benefits, of which I may perhaps raise one. The issue of homophobic bullying had to be addressed by teachers when it arose, and there were real doubts as to whether or not they could do so when Section 2A—or, here, Section 28—was in place. That cannot have been right north of the Border; it is not right here.
	It is often claimed that the whole Section 2A experience was a bad one for the Scottish Parliament. That is not how I see it. A proposal was made. There was consultation. Agreement was reached on the way forward, and that allayed a number of greatly exaggerated fears which a small group had generated. That led to a general agreement, which has the support of a very broad consensus, and a wrong was righted. I do not believe that the Scottish Parliament should be in any way ashamed of that, and I very much hope that the same balanced decision will be made here today.

The Earl of Erroll: My Lords, I want to raise one or two points. The first is that I seem to remember a definition in which it was stated that the only way to explain the difference between education and training was as follows. If your daughter came home from school and said that she had received sex education, you would probably be very grateful. If she came home and said that she had received sex training, you would be somewhat concerned. On a more serious point, I believe that one worry is that role play—an issue mentioned in some of the lobbying material—falls into the area of training. That is one concern in people's minds.
	The whole matter of Section 28 is a complete red herring. The LGA briefing—discredited or otherwise—clearly states in its penultimate paragraph:
	"The LGA is quite clear that the repeal of Section 28 will make no difference to how sex education is conducted in any classroom in any school in England and Wales".
	That is interesting because it shows that perhaps we need some protection. I believe that such protection should be democratic and at the school stage. Conditions vary hugely in different areas. I am sure that there are deprived areas where very explicit education is required and that in other areas, where people are perhaps better behaved, such education does not need to be quite so explicit so early.
	Therefore, I believe that discretion should be left in the hands of the parents, who can decide what is needed for their own children. Sending the material to parents may be a very good way to deal with the matter and may even revitalise some marriages—or perhaps, these days, I should say "partnerships".

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I declare an interest as a patron of the Family Planning Association. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has asked us to discuss in this debate the terms of her amendment rather than, by implication, the whole principle of Section 28. I shall attempt to do that, although I say to her that I believe Section 28 and the way that it set a context for sex education in this country over a number of years is very relevant to the amendments that she puts forward and the likely consequences of those amendments.
	My own view is that Section 28 was ill-conceived and, I believe, a source of great confusion. Even though it did not relate specifically to schools and to teachers, it encouraged a climate in which teachers avoided dealing with issues of sexuality in schools because of fear, inadequate training or, indeed, homophobia. That then acted as a barrier to young people receiving help and support and created a situation in which homophobic bullying was far less likely to be challenged. I believe that it also led to an inhibition in bringing forward health promotion in relation to sexual issues.
	I recommend that noble Lords read the report of the House of Commons Select Committee, produced only three weeks ago. It spoke about the alarming rise in sexual disease in this country and the inadequacies of many of our services in dealing with it. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that the Government will need to address that matter. The report also gives a very strong clue as to the need for more effective health and sexual education measures in our schools and in society in general.
	I have four children in school and I certainly want them to be able to talk openly and honestly to teachers and to me and my wife about issues concerning sex, sexuality and relationships. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Richardson, has suggested, it is not always easy for parents to do that. We do not live up to the expectations that are often placed on us by official edicts from government departments, the Family Planning Association and other august institutions. It is very difficult to do so. That is why what schools do is very important indeed, and why Section 28 was a major mistake—it inhibited what teachers felt able to do.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, says that repealing Section 28 will lead to problems because the current guidance is not sufficient. My experience is that the current guidance is very sensible, that schools understand what the guidance means and requires, and that the large majority of schools have been able to implement it to the satisfaction of the great majority of parents.
	My noble friend Lady Massey, who is not in her place, made the very telling point that governing bodies have a critical role to play. These days, governing bodies are much more experienced and have to work much harder than they did 20 or 30 years ago. They no longer listen to a head teacher's report once a term and then rubber-stamp and endorse the head's decision. Governing bodies now take an active interest in the life of a school and have corporate responsibility for the decisions that they make. A large proportion of those governors are parents.
	In the face of very little evidence that some of the materials mentioned by noble Lords opposite are actually used in our schools, the suggested ballot seems to me to be extremely heavy handed. I suspect that those materials are rather more an urban myth than a reality. I know to my cost that the House is traditionally averse to the passing of unnecessary legislation. The potential ballot proposed by the noble Baroness is surely a very heavy hammer to crack a very small nut.
	My noble friend Lady Massey talked very wisely about the problems for teachers who are confused and not confident about the teaching of relationships and sex education. Far from conveying parental rights, the Draconian sword of the potential of a poll could, in my view, lead to a continued loss of confidence among those teachers. Teachers need to teach sex education in a consistent and sensible framework, and I believe that the guidance that is available provides that very framework.
	I have not always agreed with the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, on education. In fact, I rarely agree with her on education. However, she has championed the cause of taking responsibility away from the department of government and local education authorities and placing it with schools. I agree with her and I applaud her for that. But, at the end of the day, why on earth do we not trust teachers in schools, working in partnership with governing bodies and parents, to implement that guidance in a sensible way?
	In my view, the acceptance of the noble Baroness's amendment for the potential of a poll would inhibit the sensible approach of teachers to the proper and effective teaching of sex education. I very much hope that the House will reject her amendment.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I very much endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has just said in respect of trusting teachers and governing bodies.
	The noble Lord, Lord Elder, was right to say that the question here is whether to repeal Section 28 encumbered or unencumbered by the two proposed new clauses. My reading of the new clauses is that the first, tabled as Amendment No. 25, would provide that where a group of parents is unhappy with the way in which sex education is being taught in schools, that group of parents, if it constitutes more than 10 per cent of the governing body, can trigger a ballot of parents about specific provisions relating to sex education.
	The second clause, which is Amendment No. 91, maintains that Section 121 shall not come into effect until the Secretary of State is satisfied that parents know their rights under the new clause; that they know the name of the officer whom they should contact if they want to hold a ballot; that full consultation procedures are in place about the way in which sex education is delivered in schools, including a full statement of policy by the governors; that there should be full disclosure of all materials used in the provision of sex education, although "full disclosure" is not defined; and that there should be full vetting of all individuals involved in the teaching of sex education where such people are not members of staff.
	The implication of those two amendments is not that parents are given control—a point about which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, made a great deal—but that the Secretary of State would have more power. The Secretary of State—not the governors, as at present—would have to supervise what happens in schools, but the Secretary of State would have to make sure that all the provisions are satisfied. We would therefore have yet more direct supervision from the Secretary of State. I am very surprised that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. The point of my amendments is almost the opposite. They wrest power from the Secretary of State and from local government. They place judgments as to what should happen to children in school in the hands of the parents.

Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, a reading of Amendment No. 91 indicates that the Secretary of State shall have those powers. It means more directives and more involvement—precisely what we do not want to happen—which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has on many occasions fought to prevent. Parents already have full rights to know about and view all the material that is used in teaching their children sex education, or any other form of education, and the right to express their concerns to heads, to the schoolteachers involved, to governors and to local education authorities. Those arrangements work perfectly satisfactorily at the moment.
	My noble friend Lady Scott mentioned that, as a member of a local education authority for 12 years, she has received no complaints about the materials used in teaching sex education. In addition, if they are unhappy with the procedures, parents have full rights to withdraw their children from sex education classes.
	First, the proposal put forwarded by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, introducing the possibility of a poll adds yet another layer of complications. Again, it takes away from the responsibilities that lie with governors and teachers and in that sense undermines yet further their authority. The threshold for the ballot is 10 per cent, half of the 20 per cent required when ballots were held for grant-maintained schools, although at that time, the government, which I remind the House was a Conservative government, set the figure at 20 per cent deliberately to avoid the capture by the parent bodies of a narrow interest group.
	Secondly, the procedures about ballots are divisive. We will have a two-month period of elections which will tend to politicise the whole issue, feeding dissension among parents and polarising views.
	Thirdly, it is not at all clear on what parents will be required to vote. There is talk of a specific proposition but that could be as narrow as the use of a particular textbook or a particular video for a particular class. Yet, it is the whole body of parents that is being asked to ballot on these issues.
	The best way for schools to respond to the parents cannot be put into legislation. School staff must get to know the parents and confer over the school's curriculum, be it on sex education or on other issues. Such matters are best raised informally on occasions when each side has the time and the space to listen to each other. Hustings are not the place to raise specific issues about a school's curriculum.
	Parliament has made several legislative attempts over the past quarter of a century to find how best to poll the collective views of parents on school matters. Depending upon one's point of view, they have either been a brilliant success or a dismal failure. Perhaps one thing that they had in common was that they imposed considerable bureaucratic demands on schools and took school staff away from their prime responsibility to educate children.
	One exception to all that is Parliament's first attempt to give parents a voice and to put elected parents onto school governing bodies. Parents almost universally have confidence in their elected parent representatives and Parliament should have confidence in them by rejecting the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. In the newly reconstituted governing bodies that will be in place from September 2003 parent governors will have at least one-third of the seats on governing bodies. They will form the biggest group, the biggest stakeholder group, on school governing bodies.
	Perhaps I can quote from a contribution that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, made to our debates on the Education Bill last year when we were talking about the role of parents within schools and the possibility of ballots on another issue. On that occasion she said:
	"I know of no statute that states that one has to ascertain the views of parents and give due weight to them as regards the running of a school. It is the governing body that does that. Almost any school worth its salt knows its pupils".—[Official Report, 9/5/02; col. 1386.]".
	Parents have already elected fellow parents to make their views heard in the decision-making body of the school, the school governing body. Parliament should have confidence in the good judgment of those parents by rejecting the amendment.

Lord Moran: My Lords, one thing on which I hope that all noble Lords can agree is that on this matter the interests of children should come first, last and always. Anyone who seeks to put the rights of homosexuals or heterosexuals or any other group ahead of the need to protect children is deeply misguided.
	I supported the late Lady Young on Section 28 and I greatly admired what she did. I was, and remain, sure that it is right that local authorities should not intentionally promote homosexuality. I believe that the clause was effective in deterring some councils from promoting the homosexual agenda, but it was defective in dealing only with homosexuality. It has now gone and we are considering a new approach.
	Simply to repeal Section 28 and to put nothing in its place, in my view, would be quite wrong. I fear that to remove the prohibition on intentionally promoting homosexuality, by itself, will be a green light to those who want to corrupt children.
	At the heart of the debate is the issue of sex education. I never had any sex education, at least I do not recall it. No doubt it is necessary to give children in maintained schools some simple explanation of the process of reproduction and the details of contraception, but it seems to me that sex education has got out of hand. Most ordinary people would be appalled if they were to see the material now used by a small minority as a basis for sex education.
	Of the many letters that I have received on this subject I was particularly struck by one I received from a secondary school teacher in Wales from which I should like to quote. The lady wrote:
	"I am on the front line in the sense that I have to teach Personal and Social Education (which includes Sex Education) and I am involved in helping pupils pastorally. I have read some sex education resources being used currently by a minority of local authorities which have managed to slip through the net, and I am both appalled and immensely disturbed by what I have seen. If Section 28 were repealed then it would be highly likely that these resources could spread throughout the country, and I might have to end up using them in my teaching. I am no prude, but the information contained is highly explicit and encourages pupils to experiment with homosexuality . . . Furthermore, it seems that there is a false belief that more explicit sex education at increasingly younger ages will solve the problems of teenage pregnancies and the growing crisis of sexually transmitted diseases. I see no evidence of this at all. Indeed in my experience, many pupils are sexually active and promiscuous at a younger age than ever before. It is time some limits were drawn".
	I welcome and support the amendments which have been proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and by my noble friend Lord Palmer, especially the need for parents to know what the materials used are, both for children and to brief teachers, and to see the material for themselves. I warmly welcome subsection (2A)(e)(i) of Amendment No. 91. There is also a need to stop, or at least closely to control, those other than teachers who come in to take part in sex education. I think that subsection (2A)(e)(ii) of Amendment No. 91 is also important. Our children deserve not the debasing of sex that is encapsulated in the injunction for 13 year-olds quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, "try experimenting with other boys and girls and see what you feel most comfortable with", recommended by Gloucestershire and East Sussex County Councils, but the experience, if they are lucky, of the magic of life-long love.

Earl Russell: My Lords, influence on teenagers comes from a number or sources—from parents, from teachers, from peer group and from the media. In those contradictory influences we give to children choice, which is the most precious thing that one can give to a young person. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in her Amendment No. 91 has attempted to elevate parents to a position of sovereignty in this web—and is therefore pulling the web apart.
	Our teachers and local authorities are not the European Union—they do not deserve to be treated in that way. Parents come in all shapes and sizes. I knew one who said that there was no credit in loving her children, it was like loving one's big toe. That is a proprietary attitude which is not always in the interests of the children. If it had chanced that my father had been the father of the noble Baroness, she might have wanted more to have been protected from his influence than by him. As my noble friend Lady Scott said, there is also a big problem with parents for children who are homosexual. I have discussed this with pupils who want to come out. The one matter that most terrified them was their parents knowing their state. If one works on teenage homelessness, as I have done from time to time, it is full of cases of people who have been thrown out because their parents discovered that they were homosexual.
	Parents should have strong influence on their children. They should not have absolute power. No one should have that over another human being. It is because this amendment builds up the absolute power of parents that, thinking what the noble Baroness knows I think about Section 28, I even prefer Section 28 to this amendment. It is possible that the Secretary of State might think the same, which is why the noble Lord, Lord Alli, was right to say that this was a wrecking amendment.

Earl Peel: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, talks about the importance of giving choice to children. I accept that this is a hugely important part of parental responsibility. But it seems to me—and we are talking here about children of young and vulnerable age—that the most important thing we can give to them is guidance. That is exactly what my noble friend's amendment is about.
	I had no intention of speaking today. Unlike other noble Lords, I have not participated in the debate so far. But the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, made reference to a letter that was circulated to your Lordships on this subject. I fully understand that at times it is difficult for your Lordships to be in their places at the appropriate time. It is interesting to note that of the five people who wrote the letter, only one is in his place at the moment—my noble friend Lord Norton. The rest are not in their places. That does not mean that they do not feel strongly about the subject, but, having gone to the trouble to write the letter, at the very least they could have attempted to be in their places during today's debate.
	I have one other point. My noble friend suggested that we should address our remarks to the points she raised. I crave her indulgence and that of the whole House as I move on to one other item, which I think is incredibly important. It appears once again in the letter which your Lordships received. I find it extraordinary that the five noble Lords who put their names to the letter should suggest that the debates that have taken place on this subject, which they describe as,
	"highly emotive and divisive debates",
	should thus far have done the public reputation of this House little good. I am sorry, but I take extreme exception to that.
	I believe that quite the reverse has happened. The letters that I have received—and there have been more on this subject than on virtually any other—have been totally supportive of the actions of your Lordships over the years on the question of Section 28. And let us not forget that the duty of this House is to subject legislation to full and proper scrutiny in a way which sadly does not happen now in another place. That is what we are doing, and we should continue to do so. Anyone who suggests otherwise is in my opinion taking a very dim view of your Lordships' House.

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I had not intended to speak because I felt that noble Lords had made many of the points I wanted to make. What I shall say focuses on two questions that I want to put to the noble Baroness. I begin by saying that it seems to me that all noble Lords have at the core of their hearts the protection and development of children. We may come at it from very different positions.
	If we had been discussing Section 28, I should have been speaking on behalf of its repeal. As a Christian and a childcare enthusiast and worker for many years, I would have exactly the same standing as people whom I respect—and I do respect the position of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch—for taking a different view on these issues. It is our responsibility to think through the issues. I have thought very carefully this afternoon because the noble Baroness's amendment has many attractions.
	Having sat through the debate, I want to tell the House why I shall not be voting in favour of the amendment having thought about it during the afternoon; and I have listened very openly. I have two questions, which were encapsulated for me by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The first question is: what happens in a classroom after the late night show or after a child has picked up the magazine I picked up in my hotel last night called Elle, which I thought was an ordinary magazine for females? I do not read many of those magazines. As I flicked through it I read story after story of lurid sex. I am sure that that magazine is on the coffee table of many middle class homes. I am sure that many children I have worked with actually listen to and watch those TV programmes. I, too, caught one recently: I learnt a great deal. But these things are there for children as well as for adults to see, which I do not think we can deny.
	So what happens in the classroom on the Tuesday morning after the programme when the child asks the question: what is oral anal sex? What are these other things that they see on television? Does the teacher say, "I cannot engage in a discussion about this." What does that do in terms of mystique? I would much rather that a child for whom I was responsible had a direct answer to that question than for them to come home with real queries, even though someone in another place had voted against that happening. I would give them a reasonable answer. We know the level of child poverty. I do not have the numbers in front of me because this was not the speech that I was going to make. But there are many children who go back to homes where they could not even admit to the question.
	The noble Earl, Lord Russell, mentioned the many children who are worried about their sexual development. For many years I was the chief executive of Childline. Last year Childline counselled 16,000 children who were confused about their sexuality. This does not mean that they thought they were one thing or the other, they just did not understand about their sexuality. It says something about present sex education in this country if that is happening with children. If teachers are prevented from giving education, then it would be even more difficult.
	They talked to 124 youngsters, mostly boys, who were concerned about being homophobic. The stories of children speak for themselves. I spoke to a youngster whom I will call Bill. He was 15 and very distressed. He had been called names and experienced homophobic bullying at school which, as we all know, is a result of Section 28. He could not talk to his teacher who told him to go home and talk to his parents. Bill's father was extremely homophobic. He knew he would be beaten. He had been beaten anyway. That child decided to run away. If he runs away, he ends up on the streets of London. We know what happens to young homosexual boys and men on London streets. They get into the sex industry. I worked with youngsters involved in that. Once in that industry, the children do not get out of it. That is the long-term consequence of not helping children to understand the nature of what goes on.
	When I was younger I do not really remember my sex education, although I think I had it, but the world now is a very different place. If we are to protect our young people then we have to make absolutely sure that every child has proper sex education. I have the utmost confidence in teachers and in my very long experience I have never seen the material to which the noble Baroness refers. I feel sorry about that. It is something that I should have seen. I have great confidence that our teachers will convey to young people the right information. They will be able to answer their questions and therefore give them the protection and care that they rightly deserve. I hope that your Lordships will reject the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have taken a few soundings not least from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. There seems to be a feeling that perhaps we could move reasonably soon towards a vote.

Noble Lords: Hear, hear!

Lord Rooker: My Lords—

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I must put on record our party policy to repeal Section 28. It was stated in our manifesto as:
	"A section which gives legal sanction to discrimination, preventing schools taking effective measures against bullying and hampering responsible sex education."
	The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, has summed up very well the positions and the dilemmas. As the recipient of an absolutely hopeless sex education, I feel strongly that children should be given the opportunity to ask questions and to receive answers. The noble Baroness, Lady Massey, spoke of teachers who are "wrecks" when dealing with the subject. I suspect that that is in part because of the generation of children, now grown up, who are not able to deliver good sex education.
	Amendment No. 91 imposes the element of conditionality that goes to the repeal of Section 28 and requires the Secretary of State to provide a certificate in respect of each school. On checking with the Library, I find that in this country there are some 34,538 schools. I do not wish to detain the House, but that conditionality is a fundamental point of the vote today. To agree to an amendment which many noble Lords have illustrated is impracticable and unworkable would mean that we would not be repealing Section 28 in the unencumbered fashion that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, suggested.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, 16 noble Lords have spoken in the past hour and a half, so the speeches have been brief and I shall try to be equally swift in my response. First, this is a free vote. Secondly, I suspect that there is not a soul in this place who will change their vote as the result of anything that I say in the next few minutes.
	I wish to make a few brief points. First, let us not beat about the bush: this is about keeping Section 28 on the statute book. That would be the consequence of the amendments. I say that because the Government have no intention of organising polls in 30,000 schools. That is out of the question. If the amendment is carried, Section 28 would stay. We need to get that point out of the way at the start.
	As regards my own experience, I have nothing to declare. I am not a parent and this is the first time I have sat in a debate such as this. I have never spoken on the issue before, but the experience of friends of mine who are parents certainly bears out what has been said in our debate. However, as a Member of Parliament I did not encounter any problems from teachers, school governors or children following the legislation in 1987.
	I can recall some of my own sex education at Handsworth Technical School for Boys in Birmingham. Basically we were told to be careful when going into public lavatories, mainly to make sure that the seat was clean as much as anything else. Our education amounted to gross embarrassment and we all thought "Thank heavens" when self-service chemists came along. That is the reality of it, but one criticism made in a document sent in is that children might be embarrassed when they go into a chemist to buy contraceptives.
	I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, is in his place. I recall his very courageous action on behalf of the government of the day on the HIV and AIDS campaign. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, the former Prime Minister, for backing him. To distribute to every household in the country those warnings about HIV infection in such an explicit fashion was a very brave thing to do. More education came out of that campaign in terms of changing sexual practices than practically anything that has taken place in our schools. But much of it has been forgotten and it bears repeating.
	Secondly, I regret to say that in some ways the atmosphere on this issue is almost the same as it was on 8th December 1987 in Commons Standing Committee A on the Local Government Bill. I was a member of that committee on the Opposition Front Bench. I did not reply to the amendment; that was the task of my right honourable friend Jack Cunningham. The atmosphere in that committee was one of suspicion, fear, accusation and the misquoting of various materials that were circulating at the time. Contrary to the myths that have been perpetuated, we did not vote on it. Noble Lords can check the record and see that the section went into the statute book in Committee without a vote. A vote seeking to amend it was taken later on Report—on an amendment that sought to improve sex education—but it was voted down. Earlier this afternoon I checked the record and found that the honourable Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey, Simon Hughes, moved the amendment.
	I do not want to argue about the number of schools in England. I think that there are around 20,000 primary schools and 4,000 secondary schools. That leads me to believe that there are at least a third of a million people functioning as school governors in England alone. With that many schools, there must be at least 50,000 parent governors. I have to say, in all honesty, that if there was a problem that was reasonably or even partially widespread, given the number of lay people involved in school governing bodies, which of course have legal authority in this matter—not the councillors on local education authorities—we would be hearing about it day in and day out. The fact is we do not. Less than one per cent of parents withdraw their offspring from sex education classes.
	I shall respond to some of the points made in the debate. First, I shall take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in respect of taking sex seriously. The note that I have been given says that 11-year-olds would never be taught the issues identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The teachers' pack provided an approach to use if the children raise certain issues. That is part of the issue—how do the teachers respond? They are not there to be proactive—they are there to respond. Local authorities, head teachers and governors cannot ignore or contradict the guidance. The materials mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, were part of a reading list for teachers, not for pupils. It is crucial to bear that in mind.
	Many of the children's organisations referred to by several noble Lords have asked for the repeal of Section 28. None has seen the need for additional protection with which to replace it. That is partly because there are other organisations that look after young people in other areas. For example, Ofsted deals with youth clubs and reports on local education authorities. Anyone would think that outside the schools there is no mechanism. However, we would hear from Ofsted if there were a problem in youth clubs, because the LEA would be checked out in that respect.
	There are indeed some myths about. I will not go through some of the quotes that have been read out, and I will certainly not return to the LGA memorandum, whether if was from the LGA or not, although I note that no one in the course of this debate has said that any of the points made in it were factually incorrect. That is worth noting. Sometimes we have been given a full sentence instead of the part of a sentence that was given in other briefs. It is also useful to note that.
	This is not a government issue—this is a free vote—but I should point out that the amendments seek to introduce new mechanisms for consulting parents on specific issues. However, those issues are not set out, and it is clear that would be a minefield in itself. The amendments propose that local authorities would undertake polls. We would argue once again that the framework that is already in place that ensures that parents have a voice in what is taught in schools has been ignored. The role played by local authorities in sex education has been misunderstood. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has referred to only two authorities, and I do not propose to go into rebuttals that could come from either of them. One is Labour-controlled and one is Tory-controlled, so this is not an issue of political affiliation.
	Decisions about sex education in schools are made by head teachers and governors. I will repeat that: decisions about sex education in schools are made by head teachers and governors, having regard to the Government's guidance, which they are not able to ignore. The sex and relationship education guidance specifically addresses the issue of parental involvement, making it clear that it should be ongoing. The guidance says that it is essential that parents be regularly consulted on sex education in schools, particularly when the contents are being reviewed.
	As long as a school has regard to the government guidance by involving parents in devising policy, there should be no reason for parents to object to the content of sex and relationship education. However, if they do, they can raise their concerns with school and the Secretary of State for Education. They can withdraw their children from all or part of the sex and relationship education provided by the school, except for those parts included in the statutory national curriculum for science. In practice, as I have said, very small numbers—less than one per cent—choose to do so.
	We submit that this is a robust framework that works well. It is fairly new in some ways—it was not on the horizon in 1987, so I am not making that comparison—but it works well. To propose parental polling on sex education by local authorities is unnecessary, bureaucratic, potentially divisive and not the way to decide the content of an effective sex and relationship education programme for our children in their schools. So I shall be voting against the amendment.

Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I know that noble Lords are anxious to get away and I shall be brief, but the noble Lord almost accused me of being dishonest about the material in my reference to Taking Sex Seriously. So if noble Lords will forgive me, perhaps I may read a lesson plan for 11-plus children. The objective of the lesson plan is:
	"To learn about the full range of sexual activities.
	The time required is one hour. The materials required are:
	"Lots of strips of card or paper (size about 8 inches by 4 inches). Marker pens. Bluetack".
	The literacy level is expected to be medium. The plan states:
	"Explain the purpose of the exercise.
	"Ask people to move into groups of three and give them a bundle of strips of card or paper.
	"Ask them to think about all the different sexual activities two people can do together. Ask them to write each one on a separate strip of card large enough so that it can be seen if put up on the wall. Tell them they can put down whatever they think of and that it is best if they do it in a specific way. E.g. rather than just 'oral sex' they might put 'sucking a man's penis' or 'licking a woman's clitoris'. (Some examples of sexual activities are given below. You"—
	the teacher—
	"may need to give a few examples to get the group thinking on the right lines".
	I stand here as a mother and simply say that for 11 pluses in schools that is outrageous.
	I have been staggered at the aggressive reluctance to trust parents. I have moved away from pontificating from on high about what thou shalt and shalt not do. Parents are best placed to know what is right for their children. I was also staggered at a point made earlier: that teachers would be appalled to put that trust in the hands of parents. All good teachers—most of them are good teachers—would welcome that partnership with parents, which would be strengthened by my amendments.
	So much has been said that misinterprets what my amendments are about. They are not about keeping Section 28 in disguise. I expect Section 28 to be repealed. The aims of my amendment are simple: that in the light of the repeal of Section 28, the protection of children from the worst form of sex education should be strengthened, so that power is wrested from the Secretary of State and placed in the hands of parents.
	I respect parents. They are best placed and the best people to make the judgments. I trust them to know what is best for their children. Tonight, I shall support them and ask other noble Lords to do the same. I beg to test the opinion of the House.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?
	Their Lordships divided: Contents, 130; Not-Contents, 180.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

Lord Mishcon: moved Amendment No. 21:
	Page 74, line 31, at end insert—
	"(2) For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that nothing in this section affects the duties and powers of the Secretary of State to make rules and issue guidance in connection with sex education under section 148 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (c. 21) amending the Education Act 1996 (c. 56)."

Lord Mishcon: It appears that the melodrama is over and a rather insignificant act follows.
	I move the amendment for two reasons. The first is because there ought to be no controversy on the subject of education and children, and I wish the Bill to become one with reasoning behind it. Secondly, I hope that a resolution will be passed that finds favour in another place. That will accomplish two things. First, we will have escaped—if that is the appropriate word—the hammer of the Parliament Acts being invoked. Secondly, we will have achieved something by way of guidance to teachers in our schools.
	Many of us remember the debates on this matter in the past. I believe I am right in saying that the bishops took a prominent part in trying to see whether a Bill could be enacted that would favour guidance being given to teachers in terms acceptable to everyone. I shall read exactly what transpired after that. Then, no doubt to your Lordships' pleasure, I shall sit down.
	The Bill that followed from some of our discussions was the Learning and Skills Bill. Anyone who was seeking to know what happened with regard to our discussions on the matter of Section 28 would look up the Act under which it was being dealt—the Local Government Act 1988—and would find the word "repealed". That means that a number of people would not know what had happened and would think that Parliament had decided, after all, that what was behind that section was not the policy of Parliament. Parliament wanted clarity of view and that clarity was, "We have repealed it because we do not agree with what it says". In those circumstances, this fact was passed as an Act:
	"The Secretary of State must issue guidance designed to secure that when sex education is given to pupils at maintained schools— (a) they learn the nature of marriage and the importance for family life and the bringing up of children".
	It continues:
	"(b) they are protected from teaching and materials which are inappropriate having regard to the age and the religious and cultural background of the pupils concerned.
	1(B) In discharging their functions under subsection (1) governing bodies and head teachers must have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance".
	I should have thought that following on the vote which has just taken place—and indeed even if it had had a different result—that would be acceptable to the House and, one would hope, also to another place. Then we would have a clear view as to what Parliament had intended. I beg to move.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, Amendment No. 21, moved by my noble friend, seeks to provide an assurance that the repeal of Section 28, to which the House has just agreed, will not affect the duties and powers of the Secretary of State for Education to issue guidance in respect of sex education. I can without any qualification give my noble friend that assurance. Therefore, we do not believe it necessary to put the words on the statue book.
	The Education Act 1996 as amended by the Learning and Skills Act 2000 clearly sets out the duties of the Secretary of State to issue guidance designed to secure that, where sex education is given to pupils in maintained schools, they learn the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and they are protected from teaching and materials which are inappropriate. Those arrangements will be entirely unaffected by the repeal of Section 28. No changes are made to the Education Act as a result of the amendments associated with repeal of Section 28 that will in any way affect the role, powers or duties of the Secretary of State for Education. There is no doubt on that score. Therefore, we do not believe that any confirmation of it is required on the face of the legislation.
	My noble friend's amendment has nevertheless been very useful by allowing the position to be so clearly stated in Hansard immediately after the preceding debate.

Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in the light of those charming remarks by the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Brightman: had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 22:
	After Clause 121, insert the following new clause—
	"PROMOTION OF PARTICULAR SEXUAL LIFESTYLES (1) Subject to the general principle that the institution of marriage is to be supported, a local authority shall not encourage, or publish material intended to encourage, the adoption of any particular sexual lifestyle.
	(2) This section does not prohibit the provision for young persons of sex education or counselling services on sexual behaviour and associated health risks."

Lord Brightman: My Lords, at this hour, and in the circumstances, I do not think that it would be sensible of me to move my amendment. I shall therefore not move it and re-table it for Third Reading.

[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 23:
	After Clause 121, insert the following new clause—
	"MAYOR OF LONDON: OPENNESS (1) After section 38 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29) (delegation) there is inserted—
	"Openness in relation to the Mayor
	38A(1) Section 22 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (access to information etc) shall have effect as if—
	(a) the Mayor was a local authority executive,
	(b) a reference to an individual member of such an executive referred to either the Mayor or to a person or body mentioned in section 38(2) to whom an authorisation has been given by the Mayor under section 38(1), and
	(c) any occasion on which either the Mayor or such a person or body exercises any function of the Authority (whether such a function is exercisable by him solely or by him jointly with the Assembly on the Authority's behalf) was a meeting of a local authority executive,
	but with the modifications contained in subsections (2) to (4) below.
	(2) Any reference in section 22 of that Act to a committee of a local authority executive, or to a sub-committee of such a committee, shall be disregarded.
	(3) A reference in section 22 of that Act to an overview and scrutiny committee, or to a sub-committee of such a committee, is a reference—
	(a) to the Assembly;
	(b) if the Assembly has appointed a committee or committees under section 54, to such a committee or committees (being ordinary committees within the meaning of section 55(1)) as the Assembly shall designate under subsection (4).
	(4) The Assembly shall designate a committee or committees for the purpose of discharging an overview and scrutiny committee's functions under section 22 of that Act, provided that section 54 shall not apply to its functions under this subsection."
	(2) In section 420(8) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (regulations and orders) after "section 25;" there is inserted "section 38A;"."

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, Amendment No. 23 brings us to quite a different topic—access to information in relation to the Mayor of London. I should again declare an interest as a Member of the London Assembly and currently the chair.
	The amendment is not attempting to impose detailed provisions at this point. It simply proposes a regulation-making power to enable the Mayor of London, currently the only local authority executive—a technically correct term, although I use it in the wider sense here—not subject to the access to information provisions in the Local Government Act 2000, to be made subject to them.
	I wrote to the mayor when I tabled this amendment in Committee assuring him that it was not an attack on his style of government and I repeat that now. It is attempting to use a rare legislative opportunity to rectify what I believe is perhaps an oversight in the drafting of the Greater London Authority Act. There are so few opportunities for amending primary legislation that I could not let this opportunity pass.
	The amendment is intended to be a regulation-making power. The application of legislation in the area of access to information is changing fairly fast. Freedom of information provisions will come into effect quite soon. At that point I believe that the Mayor of London, whoever he may be, will have to have in place arrangements to ensure compliance, which will include a flow of information, a particular context for reporting, and making the decision-making process open and transparent.
	Although I appreciate that there are difficulties inherent in the access to information provisions which apply to executives now concerning when important key decisions are to be made, nevertheless, it does not seem appropriate that a single executive is exempt from the regime. There are provisions in the Act which enable the Assembly to require the mayor, the staff, the chairs of the functional bodies and their staff, to produce information and to appear before it and be questioned.
	As a matter of practice, they are matters which the Assembly regard as being like a sledgehammer. It would be far more appropriate to have a routine arrangement in place which would enable the Assembly, elected to fulfil a scrutiny role, to have sight of those decisions and warning of them, and allow the public to have access to them.
	I do not believe that I could ever be accused of crawling to the mayor so I have no fear of repeating it. This is not an attack on the way in which he conducts matters. He has committed himself to the GLA being the most open and transparent government that the UK has ever seen. I do not believe that this is the time to debate whether he has yet achieved that. It is not an attack on what he is doing at the moment. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I have to put it on record that I have never considered the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to be a crawler. She knows in her heart that the Government are not going to give on this, but we shall be more generous as regards a later amendment.
	I am slightly puzzled by the amendment because the GLA and the mayoral system, as designed by legislation, is one of the most open and transparent bodies that legislators have provided compared with other forms of public authority. What the noble Baroness seeks to achieve is effectively already there.
	Perhaps I may list the key openness provisions which are in place. There has to be a statement of executive decisions as soon as is practical after they are made. All the meetings are held in public, unless they are commercially sensitive. A forward plan has to be published for all the executive functions, whether it is from leading figures within the Assembly, the mayor or a council manager; they have to produce a plan each month.
	There has to be a report on key GLA decisions—that is established in statute in Section 45 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. A mayoral question time is established under the same section. All Assembly meetings are in public by virtue of Section 58. The committees have to be held in public as well. They have to give proper notice and documentation has to be publicly available.
	I turn to attendance at Assembly meetings. The Assembly can summon people, including the mayor, Assembly members, functional body board members, Authority staff, and functional body staff to give evidence at its meetings and to give evidence at its meetings and to produce documentation.
	Section 47 of the GLA Act establishes an annual state of London debate, which has to be held shortly after the mayor's annual report. It has to be in public and there has to be an opportunity for the public to speak. There is also that great innovation, the people's question time, which takes place twice a year. I should say that my local authority launched that innovation. It took place at every council meeting. Twice a year the people's question time takes place—it is written in statute; it has to happen and the public can put any matter of interest, public concern or embarrassment to the mayor directly.
	I do not think that the Authority or the mayor can easily hide away matters that should be in public. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in giving credit to the mayor. He is one of those people in public life who believes in openness and transparency. He has promoted them in his personal style and the Assembly has joined with him. He has been vigorous and clear-sighted in making good use and ensuring good use is made of the openness arrangements.
	Much as I understand the spirit behind the amendment, I do not think it is necessary. What it seeks to achieve is already there. I pay tribute to both the mayor and the Assembly for the way in which they have operated and hope that the open and transparent process of which they have made great use continues into the future. I do not think that the amendment would add anything to the processes already in place.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am not so sure that I know in my heart that the amendment will not go anywhere, but I know it in my head because the Minister told me so before we came into the Chamber. Of course there are mechanisms. We have people's question time, which is good fun. It is particularly good fun with the current mayor because he is such a good performer. Those are occasions where large numbers of people—and they have been large numbers—are able to raise issues of concern, and it is right that they should, but that is not the same as finding out precisely what the mayor is doing and intends to do.
	The state of London debate now takes the form of a television programme. It is good entertainment for those of us interested in these matters at 10.30 on a Tuesday night watching people whom we tend to know—they are often the usual suspects—using "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?"-type voting methods by which they let the audience advise them. I shall leave that aside.
	The access to information regulations to which I referred are about executive mayors having to publish in advance a proposed decision, having an agenda and reports and a record of the decision made in public. Ironically, the London Assembly, which has minimal powers, is exposed to 100 per cent scrutiny because all those regulations apply to the Assembly. The mayor, who has almost all the GLA's executive powers, is not subject to them.
	I hear what the noble Lord says. I rather doubt that I shall be able to retrieve enough people to come back to the Chamber to vote on this amendment in order to obtain the outcome that I should like. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Hamwee: moved Amendment No. 24:
	After Clause 121, insert the following new clause—
	"MEETINGS AND PROCEDURE OF THE LONDON ASSEMBLY
	(1) Section 52 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29) (meetings of the whole Assembly) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (3) there is inserted—
	"(3A) A meeting of the Assembly held under subsection (3) shall not be held within 21 days of the date when the last such meeting was held."
	(3) In subsection (6)(b) for "28" there is substituted "21".
	(4) Subsection (7) is omitted."

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I know in my heart that this might go somewhere. I am not able to read the code signalled by the Minister and so I do not know whether I should speed up or slow down.
	Amendment No. 24 concerns the meetings of the London Assembly. It seeks to rectify a technical but very irritating difficulty. At present, the assembly is not required to give notice of the Mayor's question time until the previous Mayor's question time has taken place but it must give 28 days' notice. It is perfectly reasonable that Mayor's question times should not be bunched because if the Mayor and the majority of the assembly were ever of the same political party it would be possible for them to be in cahoots and bunch together all the meetings, possibly even over August when the press are not very active.
	My amendment seeks to address that point and to make the notice period shorter so that there is more flexibility in the programme. Even though the diary would normally be set many months in advance, it would be possible to make a change without being caught by these very tight provisions.
	I believe that the amendment meets the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, in Committee. His view was that the Mayor should have time to report and that the public should receive sufficient notice to enable them to attend the meetings. Therefore, I hope that the amendment, or something very similar to it, will find its way into the final version of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, at present the London Assembly is required to hold 10 mayoral question time meetings each year. There is a requirement that at least 28 days' notice be given of any such meeting. The practical effect of that is that the meetings will always be at least 28 days apart. Amendment No. 24 would reduce the notice period and the minimum time between each meeting from 28 to 21 days.
	It is important for the effective scrutiny of the London Mayor that the mayoral question time meetings should continue to be spread relatively evenly throughout the whole year. We are also keen that adequate notice should be given of the meetings so that the Mayor and others attending the meetings have time to prepare and so that members of the public have time to make arrangements to attend if they so wish.
	I listened carefully to the debate on this issue in Committee. We fully understand that the GLA has experienced some difficulties with timetabling the meetings. We appreciate that the amendment seeks to resolve those difficulties. As I explained when the noble Baroness raised this issue in Committee, there are a number of technical defects in her amendment, and therefore, in those circumstances, the Government cannot accept it.
	However, having considered the matter very carefully since the Committee stage, we have considerable sympathy with the concerns raised by the amendment. Therefore, what I say today is designed to be helpful. We want to explore the issues further before Third Reading and, as part of that, we shall offer the noble Baroness an early meeting so that we can resolve the matter fully to everyone's satisfaction.
	I have seen the various options laid out in the letter that the noble Baroness was kind enough to send to me and to the Mayor and others. Obviously, if the noble Baroness has identified a problem here, then we shall want to sort it out. It will help to ensure that the extra layer of openness and transparency, to which I referred earlier, is available in the multiple ways that access to information, and so on, is provided for in the GLA and by the Mayor and that it is further enhanced. We want to ensure that we underpin and underwrite that. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that I have addressed the issue, and I hope that she will now be happy to withdraw her amendment with the promise of exploratory talks to sort out the problem.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, after 12 years in this place, I still cannot get the drafting right—as long as my clients never discover that. I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendment No. 25 not moved.]

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: moved Amendment No. 26:
	After Clause 121, insert the following new clause—
	"REDUCTION IN THE AGE QUALIFICATION FOR ELECTION AND HOLDING OFFICE AS MEMBER OF LOCAL AUTHORITY
	In section 79(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 (c. 70), for "twenty-one" there shall be substituted "eighteen"."

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, as long ago as 1970 the age of eligibility to vote in public elections was reduced from 21 to 18. However, the age at which an individual can stand for election remains at 21, and my amendment seeks to reduce the age of eligibility to 18.
	The Local Government Information Unit recently commissioned an independent inquiry into local governance and recommended that the age of candidature for local elections should be reduced to 18. It felt that that was especially important in local elections, for which there is generally a very poor turn-out, particularly among those in the youngest age range. It believed, and I agree, that reducing the age of candidature would be a step towards encouraging young people to vote and to play an active role in local government in their areas.
	The British Youth Council gave written evidence to the commission. It cited research showing that young people do not engage in the political processes, not because they are apathetic but because they see politicians as negative and unrepresentative of their views. That view is rather supported by the report of the Hansard Society, published in December 2001. It considered why people failed to vote in the 2001 general election and found that many of the young people who did not vote were very active in interest groups and that some of them were even members of political parties, but that they did not vote then because they felt that it would make no difference to their areas or their lives. I believe that the large number of people who turned out to march against the war demonstrates that they are not apathetic but that they care.
	The Government have quite rightly introduced citizenship lessons for young people in schools, so it is possible that young adults will be quite politically aware at the age of 16. Nevertheless, they will have to wait two years before they can vote and five years before they can stand for election to their local councils. I have been unable to find many activities in relation to which 21 remains the age of eligibility. The only one of which I am aware is the requirement to be 21 to hold a heavy goods vehicle licence. It seems to me rather odd that we can trust young people to be soldiers at the age of 18 but not to be members of the allotments sub-committee of their local district council.
	I hope that the Government will look sympathetically at the principle behind this amendment, even though I have not quite got the technicality right. I beg to move.

Earl Russell: My Lords, in supporting the amendment, I would like to quote a passage from my grandfather's diary in 1864. He was standing as a parliamentary candidate in a by-election on behalf of the Leeds Radical Workingmen's Association. He said:
	"Either the working class have a separate interest from the rest of the community or they do not. If they do, the injustice of denying them the suffrage is greater than even Mr Bright has ever maintained it to be, and, if not, why so much fuss?".
	I believe that a large number of issues come before a local authority in which people between 18 and 21 have interests that tend to be different from those of others. One might mention, for example, leisure facilities. In particular, there is an interest in late-night transport. I remember very vividly from the days when I was courting that she lived in Notting Hill and I lived in Hornsey. The issue of late-night transport was ever present.
	I believe, therefore, that there is a separate interest. I have no idea of the views of Mr Bright, but I think that to deny them the right to be councillors is a greater injustice than even the Liberal Democrat youth and students have ever maintained it to be.

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I support the amendment. I have indicated my support on previous occasions for lowering the qualifying age for candidature for public office. It is right that lowering to 18 the age at which one qualifies for election would bring the age into line with the voting age, but there is no reason why the two should be the same. In many countries they are not. My view is that if one lowers one age, one can make a greater case for lowering the qualifying age for public office. The reason is that lowering the voting age to 18 empowers 18 year-olds. When one provides for 18 year-olds to stand for office, one empowers the electorate. The choice available to the electorate is widened.
	The important point is not about candidates—they may be immature or they may not be—but about electors deciding whether they want candidates to speak for them. That is the fundamental point. My view is that the matter should be widened as much as possible and then it is up to the electors. If the electorate want someone who is not good, it is entirely up to them. I can see no argument against widening the choice. Although 18 year-olds would be allowed to stand, they would have to go through a certain process before becoming candidates as it is not an open matter like using a vote. I believe that there is a very powerful argument for lowering the qualifying age for candidature for public office. I believe that that case is stronger than the case that was made for lowering the voting age to 18, which took place in 1969. I believe that this change is long overdue and I add my support to the amendment.

Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, there are some serious anomalies concerning the age of candidature. One could make the case that people should hold public office only if they have a certain amount of life experience. I believe that in the United States there are different qualifying ages for being a member of the House of Representatives or the Senate or even for being President. However, it is difficult to see what additional learning experience comes from saying that one has to wait three years after being entitled to vote before one can stand for public office. I believe that it is a matter that should be considered.
	I would add a caution—not that any noble Lords have suggested that this would be the case—that somehow this will magically open the floodgates and that large numbers of young people will stand for office. I speak as someone who was at one time the youngest member of my local authority. I do not believe that very different kinds of people will come forward to stand for election. I believe that the signal that it will provide will be extremely important. I hope that the Government will give some indication that this matter is under active consideration.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I appreciate that this is a probing amendment to see what possibilities there are for lowering the age. I have some sympathy with the amendment, but I do not think that it is something that could simply be incorporated into the Bill without further consideration. It is true that people can do much at 18, including vote and one comes of age at 18, so there is a rationale behind this. Although I do not support the amendment being included in the Bill, it is worth consideration. If the Minister would give such an assurance I am sure that we would all be happy to make observations on it.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, the amendment would mean joining together the age of standing for election and the age for voting for local authorities. While saying that we believe that it would be wrong to accept the new clause now—I have some words to say that are good and positive—it would pre-empt the findings of the Electoral Commission, which is currently undertaking a review of the age of candidacy along with the voting age. The review commenced only on 27th February this year. The commission is planning to conduct consultation in the summer and will make its recommendations early next year. At that stage the Government will carefully consider any recommendations that the commission has to make. Given the fact that that work is taking place, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said about who becomes empowered under such a change. I freely admit that I am a little conservative about the age in the other place.
	I only once wrote a Bill, in 1995. I went to the Library one night and tried to write a Bill from a policy document. It is not the easiest thing to do as a humble Back Bencher, as I was at the time—I had never sat on the Front Bench. The Bill was to convert the Labour Party policy document about elections and changes, one of which was to bring forward the Electoral Commission, to convert the Plant report into legislation. I produced a Bill in March 1995. Part of that proposal was to change the age of being able to be elected. In order to make the change I had to go back and find out where it appeared in legislation. I found out that the current legislation—it shows what a disgrace this place is; it is unbelievable—requiring that one has to be 21 to stand for election to the other place, but it apples also to local government, is contained in the Parliamentary Elections Act 1695. The reference is,
	"7 AND 8 WILL. 3 CHAPTER 26".
	There is only one section of that Act on the statute book—Section 7. The side title is,
	"Infants not to be elected".
	It is worth repeating, and it states,
	"And that no person hereafter shall be capable of being elected a member to serve in this or any future Parliament who is not of the age of one-and-twenty years and every election or return of any person under that age is hereby declared to be null and void. And if any such minor hereafter chosen shall presume to sit or vote in Parliament he shall incur such penalties and forfeiture as if he had presumed to sit and vote in Parliament without being chosen or returned".
	That is currently the law of this land in 2003. The legislation is over 300 years old. There might be other parts that are older, but I hope that the Electoral Commission gets to work with this, as we certainly need to update our legislation.

Earl Russell: My Lords, it may amuse the Minister to hear that many people were elected under the age of 21 before that Act and became distinguished Members.

Lord Rooker: I am sure that they did.

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I was about to make the same point. The Act to which the Minister referred was not fully enforced until after 1832. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right. Many were elected under-age, including Charles James Fox, who entered Parliament at the age of 19. I gather that research carried out by the excellent History of Parliament has actually found some Members were returned at the age of 15. So there are precedents if one lowers the age. It might be that one may wish to choose someone below the age of 21.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I should not have done that; it was totally out of order. Although we have changed the age of majority from 21 down to 18, in fact there is virtually no age between about the age of five and 21 where there is not some restriction. I remember dealing with the question when I was a Home Office Minister. Someone set all this out for me. There are all kinds of odd age restrictions, even concerning buying chemicals. There is a whole series. There might be a couple of years between five and 21 when there is no restriction on what the individual can do. But all the way up the age range there is a huge number of limitations based on age. It shows just how pathetic this place is at modernising its legislation, if nothing else. To be positive, I hope that with the Electoral Commission's review we shall have a consultation and a report, which will be published next year, and then we shall be able to get our teeth into it.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have made a contribution. It is an unexpected gem at the end of a long afternoon. I am also grateful to the Minister for his positive replies. I am fairly happy to wait for the outcome of the Electoral Commission report—although I note in passing that having had the same legislation on the statute book since 1695 we would not wish rush into anything, would we? I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 4 [Imposition of borrowing limits]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 27:
	Page 3, line 5, leave out subsections (2) to (6) and insert—
	"( ) No regulations may be made under this section unless—
	(a) the Secretary of State has consulted such representatives of local government as appear to him to be appropriate,
	(b) he has laid before each House of Parliament a report explaining the reasons why he considers it necessary that the regulations be made, and
	(c) the report has been approved by resolutions of each House of Parliament.
	( ) Section 122(1) and (2) do not apply to regulations made under this section."

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, we discussed this matter in Committee. The clause lays down restrictions on local authorities' ability to borrow. To borrow was one of the great flexibilities and freedoms that the Bill was intended to promote, and it is one of the areas upon which local authorities have hung their collective hats and hopes for the future.
	Clause 1 gives local authorities the power to borrow. Clause 2 promptly reduces that and states that it can be limited. The amendment seeks to restrain the Secretary of State from rushing in too liberally to limit that power. We understand that the Secretary of State may have reasons—for example, macro-national reasons—that require all borrowing to be curtailed in some way. The power in the Bill would enable him to curb that borrowing.
	However, we believe that before any such necessary curbing is brought forward, either for individual local authorities or in general, that there should be discussions with the local authorities—either with the Local Authority Association or individual local authorities—which might find this power reduced.
	Under the amendment, we would also expect the Secretary of State to come to Parliament and explain why this borrowing power was going to be reduced. We would further ask were it to happen that it should be introduced only by affirmative resolution, so the House has another opportunity to discuss the issue.
	As I said at the beginning, this power to borrow has become a major feature of the freedoms and flexibilities which local authorities are looking forward to having. So any restriction of it will be—and should be—taken extremely seriously. It is for that reason that we move the amendment. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, as in Committee, we support the amendment of the noble Baroness. As she said, the provision gives with one hand and takes away with the other which seems to be clad with a rather tougher glove in a tougher fist. It is a pity because the Government have made so much of building a good relationship with local government. That has been referred to throughout the proceedings on the Bill.
	The Government's attitude is that they want to recognise local government's responsibilities; they want to allow it to take its own decisions; and they want to reserve to themselves the right to deal with authorities which are in difficulty or which are not doing so well. Of course we have our own interpretation of the possibilities allowed by some of these provisions. But, that is not the way to build the relationship, and certainly not the way to bring struggling local authorities up to scratch.
	I have had difficulty throughout with Clause 4(2) to (6), including what still seems to me to be an inconsistency between subsections (1) and (2), that the whole of this is based on the Secretary of State being able to limit borrowing for national economic reasons. One understands the rationale for that, but under subsection (2) the Secretary of State is able to set limits on borrowing by a particular local authority. I do not find those two points lie comfortably or logically with one another.
	The noble Baroness has covered both the philosophical and practical points well. We support her.

Lord Hanningfield: My Lords, I should like to add one further point in support of my noble friend Baroness Hanham. We discussed this in Grand Committee and I should like the Minister to clarify this point. We have a prudential borrowing regime that is accepted by the professional bodies. We spoke about this at considerable length in Grand Committee. This regime is generally supported by local government. That should be enough power for the Government. The whole point of the new system is that local authorities would not be able to borrow if they could not afford it. We all recognise that this regime could be a good way forward for capital borrowing in local government. This particular power is encapsulated in the prudential borrowing regime. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, described the Minister's approach as "iron fisted". I believe it could be a slightly sinister approach where Ministers could target particular authorities when they should already be covered by the borrowing regime. We shall come back to this again because we still have not had a satisfactory response.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this amendment is identical to one put down by the Conservatives in Grand Committee. It was supported by the Liberal Democrats as they said this afternoon and reported in Hansard cols. GC90 to GC92. It partly reflects the recommendations in Paragraph 14 of the report on the draft Bill by the Transport, Local Government and Regions Committee. The amendment has integrity behind it. However, its main effect is to require the approval of both Houses of Parliament—and require local government to be consulted—before regulations are made setting a national borrowing limit under Clause 4(1). The ODPM response was that no statutory requirement for parliamentary approval was necessary, given that any national limit would be implementing policies on public expenditure that had already received parliamentary scrutiny.
	If noble Lords opposite think about it, that is a very logical and sound approach. I am surprised that they have chosen to argue their case in the way that they have. I think back to the Conservative period of government. In local government we were concerned about the impact of the very tight capital and revenue expenditure limits to which we were subjected. Although I found them very hard to live with, they were a logical part of a national economic strategy and they were argued in those terms. We were told that local government should be no different from the rest of the public sector and that the public sector had to play its part in a particular economic approach. One can argue about the ideology and the principles behind it, but it rested on logic.
	I am surprised at the way in which the Opposition have moved this amendment. It would have—will have—far-reaching economic implications. It is essential that the freedom to borrow is balanced by safeguards to protect both the national economy and local taxpayers. Clause 4 gives the Government reserve powers that I do not see as sinister. Governments often have reserve powers in these situations enabling them to impose borrowing limits which would override the affordable borrowing limits set by authorities themselves under Clause 3. But those powers are for national economic reasons—the state of the economy.
	The amendment has other unacceptable side effects. By deleting Clause 4(2) it would prevent a limit being set for an individual authority to stop imprudent borrowing. This would remove a valuable safeguard for local taxpayers. By deleting subsection 4(3) it would prevent different limits being set for different kinds of borrowing. It would remove a flexibility that could benefit local authorities. By deleting subsections (4) to (6), the amendment would prevent authorities from transferring spare borrowing headroom between and among themselves, something which I am sure noble Lords opposite would see as a useful and valuable flexibility within the community of local government.
	Moreover, the amendment also seeks to disapply Section 122 which allows different provisions to be made in regulations for different classes of authorities. We think that that could be needed to spread more fairly and properly the impact of any national limit. For all those reasons, we think that the amendment is unwise.
	I turn now to the points raised about consultation. It needs to be said simply and honestly that of course we consult with local government on matters relating to financial regulation. We do so all the time. Indeed, many noble Lords and noble Baronesses on both the Opposition Benches are well aware of that through their long involvement in local government. We listen to and take such consultation seriously because we want to get things right. We accept the advice we are given by local government representatives because, after all, they deal with these matters day in and day out. They have a clear sight and understanding of what goes on in local government. Consultation is a given and we try to ensure that it is as open and transparent as possible.
	Taking all these reasons together, I cannot accept the amendment. I hope that noble Lords, in particular those on the Conservative Benches, will understand why we feel that under the circumstances this amendment is exceptionally unwise.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am conscious of the response he gave in our previous debate in Grand Committee on 2nd June 2003 at col. GC 92 of Hansard. At that point he made it clear that, with regard to consulting local authorities, the Government had given a firm commitment to do that. However, as I understand it, that commitment applies to general local authorities and does not deal with what is set out in Clause 4(2) on the direction to a particular local authority.
	I do not think it would be possible to impose a borrowing limit without some form of consultation, but having said that, perhaps it could be done. It may be a power that the Secretary of State will take to himself so that he could decide to impose it. That is not an unreasonable assumption. However, working as always on the assumption that, while Ministers in this House are nothing but reasonable and understanding, I am not so sure about the other place; and it would not be a Minister in this House who made the decision. Therefore under the terms of Clause 4(2), I hope to see that individual local authorities will be consulted.
	Of course we understand that, in a national crisis, borrowing limits might have to be imposed. However, Clause 1 is very specific and has come to be regarded as a serious totem by local government: it will now have the power to borrow. That is a very new and fresh responsibility and it is one that has been warmly accepted. Then to put caveats on that freedom requires the most thorough justification—I think only for national economic reasons. Within those, there has to be proper discussion with local authorities.
	I hear what the Minister has said and I have read his remarks made on the last occasion. I appreciate that he has given us a full response. For today's purposes, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 8 [Control of credit arrangements]:

Lord Rooker: moved Amendment No. 28:
	Page 4, line 35, leave out subsection (4).

Lord Rooker: My Lords, this amendment relates to Clause 8 which deals with credit arrangements such as leasing and hire purchase contracts. It empowers the Government to make regulations about the cost of such transactions so that they can be treated like borrowing and brought under the prudential and any other national limits set in accordance with Clauses 3 and 4. All of that is essential to the new system. However, Clause 8(4) contains a further regulation-making power, allowing us to impose additional restrictions on the power of a local authority to enter into credit arrangements.
	An Opposition amendment in Grand Committee sought to delete subsection (4). In resisting the amendment, we tried to allay concerns about the scope of the power. To explain how we intended to use the power, we drew the Committee's attention to regulation 7 in the draft capital regulations, which we have placed in the Library.
	We had in mind one, specific objective—to retain the prohibition that has existed since 1990 on using credit for anything other than the acquisition of capital assets. Long-term credit like borrowing should be used only to meet capital needs and not to pay for services and running costs. At present, that restriction appears in primary legislation, but has given rise to some technical difficulties. We therefore felt that the rule could be more effectively dealt with by regulations, and that is the reason for Clause 8(4).
	The debate in Grand Committee was most helpful. We fully understand the anxieties about the provision. It is drafted in broad terms and could conceivably be used in the future to achieve ends very different from our present intentions. Though we resisted the amendment on the day, the debate persuaded us to reconsider the means of implementing this policy objective.
	It is a key aim of the Bill, and one that I know has general support, to base the capital regime as far as possible on standard accounting principles rather than on special rules devised by the Government. We have therefore been examining the accounting background and we are now satisfied that modern accounting practice offers sufficient safeguard against the use of credit for revenue purposes.
	An authority receiving some form of service and having the fees deferred for several years would be required to make a charge to revenue during those years, so there would be no perverse incentive to acquire services on credit. We believe, therefore, that we can now do without the additional legislative safeguard. This means that regulation 7 can be deleted from the draft capital finance regulations and therefore the power to make such a regulation is no longer needed. Accordingly, the amendment seeks to delete subsection (4), which I hope will meet with the support of the House. I beg to move.

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am sure that it meets with the approval of those Members of the House who are left, who consist largely of those who spoke against this provision at the previous stage. I am delighted that the Government have taken this view of the matter. It was probably, although I have not gone back and checked Hansard, one of those occasions when at least one of us asked what might happen if the other lot were in control. I very much welcome what the Government have done. I hope that it does not sound patronising if I say that it is a very mature response to the situation—I do not mean that to be patronising.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the Minister has made a welcome contribution to this debate. I thank him for his efforts.

On Question, amendment agreed to.
	Clause 11 [Budget Monitoring: Greater London Authority]:

Baroness Hanham: moved Amendment No. 29:
	Page 5, line 38, leave out paragraph (b).

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, we had a considerable discussion in Committee on the use of capital receipts. We discussed at length the difficulties of part of those capital receipts being clawed back, and we also discussed the problems associated with local authorities having to hand over capital receipts and then having insufficient money to maintain the stock that they still held. One of the serious things that has happened over the years is that where local authorities have been responsible for housing stock they have not had sufficient capital to maintain it.
	The amendments are intended to deal with that, especially Amendment No. 32, so that where a local authority is to hand over capital receipts to the Secretary of State, 50 per cent of that should be either held back by the local authority or returned to it specifically to deal with the cost of any capital works to any building or land which a local authority has a duty to maintain, or for a local registered landlord to have access to some of the money to repair property that is being used, effectively, for social housing purposes. That is the purpose of the amendments. I beg to move.

Baroness Maddock: My Lords, the intention of my amendments, which are grouped, is similar, although they are couched differently.
	Clause 11 gives the Secretary of State the right to pool capital receipts—75 per cent of receipts from the sale of council houses and 50 per cent from other assets. We debated that in Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, argued that authorities' receipts from right-to-buy sales were a windfall and that the income does not arise from active asset management but from tenants' decisions to buy their homes. To many of those involved, that does not justify sequestration of all the receipts for redistribution.
	Local authorities are under constant pressure to provide new, affordable housing and to make the necessary investment to bring houses up to the decent home standards. The more homes that an authority sells, the greater the need for use of capital receipts. Our amendments are a compromise. They are intended to try to persuade the Government that if local authorities are going to use the receipts for housing purposes, they should not be sequestered by the Government and redistributed.
	The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, also argued that redistribution is an essential part of the housing capital finance system. It is a complex system that already incorporates an element of redistribution, but it is rather different: it does not take money from local authorities to redistribute it; it just does not distribute so much money in the first place.
	There is concern about the matter. Even if the Minister is not minded to agree to any of our amendments—they may not be perfectly worded—I hope that he will agree to the principle. Even if he does not, those who will be affected want to know how the Government intend to roll forward their proposals. How will the pooled housing capital receipts be redistributed? We understand that those figures will not be available until the autumn. Many people also fear that the Government may take real money away from authorities and that any funds returned will be in the form of approval to borrow rather than actual grant.
	The Government have made transitional arrangements. We understand that in the first year 75 per cent of what authorities pay into the capital receipts pool will be returned to them, provided that it is spent on housing; and that that will fall to 50 per cent and 25 per cent in succeeding years.
	I am also grateful to the Minister for a copy of the letter that he sent to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Guildford, in which he outlines a little more of his thinking. He states:
	"It is wrong that a local authority rich in receipts with a relatively low housing need uses those receipts to artificially reduce their council tax while a less fortunate authority with far greater housing need is starved of funds".
	I do not think that any of us disagree with that statement, but I remind the Minister that we have built the fewest number of houses since 1924 in this country. It is not houses in the private sector that make up the reduction. We have been building similar numbers of homes in the private sector year on year. However, it is in the public sector that housing has not been built. The right reverend Prelate goes on to say that without pooling receipts for all authorities, the alternatives are either higher taxes, less investment and cuts in other programmes. The programme has been cut for at least the past 20 years.
	If the Government are short of money, I would remind the Minister that since this Government came to power, house price increases have meant that their take from stamp duty has been extra billions every year. Therefore, I do not find a shortage of money a compelling argument.
	I hope that the Minister will look at this favourably. It seems to me that because of the cutbacks in social housing, every authority is having a problem providing affordable homes, particularly for key workers. They should be allowed to keep that money if they are investing it in affordable housing.

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I appreciate we have turned to an issue that we discussed in Committee. However, that is not a complaint on my part because this is a very important issue for local government.
	These amendments are concerned with the treatment of capital receipts and limiting the housing capital receipts that may be subject to pooling or removing the power to pool housing capital receipts altogether.
	Perhaps I may briefly outline how it appears to us that each of the amendments would operate. Amendment No. 29 would remove the Secretary of State's power to pool capital receipts. This would result in many authorities not getting the resources they need to meet the pressing demand for housing. That would be unacceptable.
	The redistribution of housing capital receipts has been, and will remain, a fundamental principle of housing capital finance. It is right that a portion of the proceeds from the sale of council housing is available for use in the areas of greatest housing need. The current arrangements do this by requiring local authorities to set aside a percentage of their housing capital receipts.
	The flaw in this system is that debt-free authorities are exempt. They do not have to set aside any of the capital receipts they receive and therefore they do not contribute to the redistribution system that lies at the heart of housing finance. Unlike other authorities, they hold on to the receipts and they can use them for whatever purpose they want. As I said repeatedly in Committee, such authorities did not manage the acquisition of receipts. The receipts were a result of the decision of the tenants, not a result of prudent management by the council. These funds are generated not because of good management and planning.
	Redistribution must apply to all if it is to be fair to all. It is unacceptable that some authorities should have more resources to spend than others regardless of their needs, but simply because they are debt-free and happen by chance to be rich in right-to-buy receipts. Other authorities—of all political persuasions—that have debt and lower capital receipts but greater housing investment need will lose out if they are denied redistribution. Their citizens will also lose out. That is indefensible.
	It is right that the resources generated by the sale of council housing stock should be recycled and made available for the areas of greatest need. This amendment would remove our ability to do that. The alternatives are higher taxes, less investment or cuts in other programmes.
	I accept what the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, has just said but we are putting things right with the sustainable communities plan that my right honourable friend, the Deputy Prime Minister, is taking forward.
	Amendment No. 32 is a half-way house. It would oblige the Secretary of State to hand back 50 per cent of pooled capital receipts to local authorities, but again with absolutely no regard to their relative housing need. This would, at a stroke, remove £600 million from the amount available for redistribution to housing authorities for investment in social housing. The effect would be the same as the amendment to which I have just referred. Those authorities who, through no fault of their own, do not happen to have large amounts of right-to-buy receipts falling in their laps will suffer.
	That the funds would be ring-fenced for housing is neither here nor there. The redistribution of resources has to be targeted to housing need. The amendment does not do that.
	As I have said on many occasions, it is right that the resources generated by the sale of council housing stock should be recycled and made available to the areas of greatest need. It is right that the proportion of capital receipts to be recovered is 75 per cent for dwellings and 50 per cent for land and other assets. That mirrors the level of set-aside that exists now and strikes the correct balance between the amount to be recovered to the pool and the amount that remains available to the local authority for capital use.
	Amendment No. 30, like Amendment No. 29, seeks to remove the Secretary of State's power to pool capital receipts, with the negative consequences that I have outlined. However, the amendment goes further than simply denying the authorities the resources they require to meet pressing housing needs. It would allow authorities to use all the receipts from the sale of council housing for any purpose they see fit. For instance, they could bank the receipts and use the interest generated to pay for the running costs of council services and so reduce the level of council tax. As a late eminent Member of the House once said, that is selling off the family silver—or, in this case, much needed social housing to meet ordinary day-to-day expenditure. It is just not fair.
	Amendment No. 31 would omit subsection (5) from Clause 11 so that the Secretary of State could not set-off any amount payable under the clause against any amount he is liable to pay the authority. It has been suggested that subsection (5) is a power enabling abuse of the pooling system for political ends. That is not true.
	As I explained in Grand Committee, subsection (5) is simply an administrative measure. It is designed to deal with the situation where a local authority is liable to pay the Secretary of State a sum of money and, at the same time, he is due to pay it a sum of money. Clause 11(5) simply allows us to give the authority the difference between the two. That then saves the authority the trouble of making a cash transfer. I emphasise the point that it would have no other financial effect on the authority and would not affect the level of overall resources available to that authority. It is not a back-door method of penalising the authority in any way, shape or form.
	Removal of the clause would not stop either the payment of capital receipts to the Secretary of State or the payment of subsidy grant to authorities, but simply make the process more administratively burdensome. I cannot believe that that is the intention.
	I appreciate that I have used exactly the same arguments as in Committee. The trouble is that the same amendments have been tabled and we have not changed our arguments, except, of course, where we have accepted what was said in Committee—but in this case we have not.

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. When we bring forward amendments for the second time, even more questions spring to mind in regard to the whole policy.
	The right to buy has been strongly promulgated by some authorities and not very much by others. There is a big comparison to be made between those authorities which have right-to-buy receipts and those which have not. The question is whether those authorities which do not have receipts have followed the policy in a way which would enable them to have such capital receipts. As to those authorities which have capital receipts as a result of giving people the right to buy—and those people wishing to buy and doing so—there is a big argument as to why those capital receipts should be taken away from them.
	There is still an argument in regard to the maintenance of property associated with affordable housing. Even within debt-free councils there will be properties that they still own and need to maintain.
	I hear what the Minister says. I have grave concerns still about the whole policy, but I shall not do anything further tonight. I thank the Minister for what he said, but I am not sure that we will not return to this issue at Third Reading.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	[Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 not moved.]
	[Amendment No. 32 not moved.]

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Trafficking in People

Baroness Elles: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government:
	What measures they are considering in order to combat illicit trafficking in people.
	My Lords, in recent years the number of young people brought into the United Kingdom for prostitution has escalated exponentially, as have the financial gains for those who trafficked them. It is alleged that the sums involved have now reached such an astronomical figure annually that it is about the same figure as that realised from drug trafficking.
	In March last year, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, introduced a debate on trafficking in children. In a distinguished speech, he made four proposals touching on support services, reflection delay, victim protection and tackling trafficking at source. I shall be touching on those issues in the time available and I would like to take this opportunity to thank all noble Lords for taking part in this short debate tonight.
	First, Her Majesty's Government should be congratulated on recognising the importance and size of this problem by the rapid introduction of Sections 143 and 145 into the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act in November last year. Inevitably, however, they are limited by the scope of the Act.
	Secondly, the introduction of Clauses 58 to 61 in the Sexual Offences Bill, now passed to another place for consideration, are also to be welcomed. The clauses, replacing and enlarging on those in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act, go some way to meeting the obligations imposed by the European framework decision on combating trafficking in human beings. This decision is to be implemented into international legislation by July next year.
	Many reports have been written during the past three years covering aspects of the problems and reflecting changes in the general attitude to those who were brought to the UK to be used as prostitutes. They were termed illegal immigrants and when identified were immediately sent back to their countries of origin, as they are still being sent back today. In many cases, they are inveigled into coming into the EU from conditions of poverty, with the hopes and aspirations of raising their standards of living, earning good wages and being employed in a variety of jobs. A more recent approach has been to recognise these people not as criminals, but as victims.
	As we know, these young girls, who are mainly between the ages of 15 and 23, may come with legal documents, but these, including passports and other documents, which may be genuine of false, are removed from them by traffickers. Many of these girls are sold to people in this country, locked up for a period and often physically abused and ill-treated, before being set up in flats or other accommodation and forced into prostitution. The money that they earn is seized by their employers on the grounds of repaying travel expenses to the UK, rent of their accommodation, and domestic costs, and many have little option but to carry on the same work. The travel costs can vary from £1,500 to an enormous £22,000 in the case of girls brought from China. The chances of ever repaying such amounts are indeed remote.
	Girls are sold on to prostitute rings or sent to a string of brothels in the suburbs. Soho is by no means the only area known for prostitution; it is a widespread phenomenon throughout other cities in the UK, including specifically Edinburgh and Glasgow, to where large numbers of Chinese have been trafficked.
	The Metropolitan Police clubs and vice squad smashed some groups last year. Chief Superintendent Chris Bradford said:
	"These women were shamelessly exploited for commercial gain"
	Some provincial forces, however, have been withdrawing their officers from active participation in dealing with trafficking due to a lack of resources and an increase in local crime. They occasionally co-operate on a case by case basis. Sentences in such cases have ranged from three and a half years to a maximum of five years imprisonment. In practice, however, such sentences are halved, making them negligible. The maximum sentence has now been raised to 14 years under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act and the Sexual Offences Bill.
	From March this year, a pilot scheme has been introduced to provide a safe house under the guidance of Eaves Housing. Various proposals from different organisations suggest ways of dealing with how to help victims of trafficking. The proposal under the European framework decision refers to the safeguarding of victims who are willing to assist the authorities in the prosecution of the traffickers involved. The UN protocol on trafficking makes it clear that enforcement cannot be achieved only by legislation.
	In Italy, there is another approach. In southern Italy, for example, victims are given permits to stay in safe houses for up to six months, regardless of whether they agree to assist in the prosecution procedures. That reflective period therefore does not insist on participation in the process, but is a means of extracting the individual from an intolerable situation without imposing legislative co-operation. I feel that that proposal should be encouraged and copied.
	Belgium and the Netherlands have also introduced measures to safeguard and protect victims from their enforced trade, and it is understood that those are proving to be successful. The British Reflex programme, launched in 2000, is also to be welcomed. It tackles the problem both at source and in the transit countries. In the UK, however, it has been approaching the matter from a different angle. It seeks first and foremost not the protection of victims, but, first, to reduce the profits made by criminal gangs; secondly, to increase the risks they take; and, thirdly, to reduce the opportunities for exploitation.
	Finally, as a further example, in December 2002, nine governments in south-eastern Europe, which are to be commended warmly, including Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary and Macedonia, supported a statement on commitments to legalise the status of trafficked persons.
	A summary of recommendations set out in Anti-Slavery International's publication Human Traffic, Human Rights makes a valuable contribution to meeting the diverse ways of handling trafficking. Among the 45 recommendations I would point to just three.
	The first is that government agencies should develop guidelines and procedures on treatment of trafficked person by law enforcement officials, together with the NGOs dealing with trafficked persons on a day to day basis. Secondly, a range of measures of protection should be made available to victims and witnesses, including both informal ones, such as access to police, and formal ones, such as secure housing. Thirdly, for victims willing to return to their country of origin, immigration and police services should make available to trafficked persons contact information on NGOs, language and interpretation facilities and social welfare organisations which can assist them on their return.
	In conclusion, I should like to put some questions to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam—who I hope has already had a copy of the questions. First, has any decision been taken on the introduction of registration cards or entitlement cards? Secondly, how many victims have so far been housed with Eaves Housing as a result of the pilot project, from 10th March 2003, with provision of safe housing for women victims of trafficking? I know that the project has begun, but I am wondering how far it has got. Thirdly, are relations with governments and NGOs of originating countries being developed both bilaterally and multilaterally—which is greatly important for those being sent back to their original countries? Fourthly, are new measures being considered in handling traffickers and affected people from, for example, the Baltic states and central and south-east Europe following enlargement of the EU in May 2004? Finally, are Her Majesty's Government indeed opting out of any of the provisions in the European framework decision?
	I look forward to the comments of noble Lords and to answers from the Minister.

Baroness Gale: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for introducing this important debate.
	Trafficking is a horrendous crime against human beings which, as the noble Baroness outlined, has become a global problem. Over the years, your Lordships' House has taken a great interest in the issue. Numerous Questions on trafficking have been tabled and important debates have expressed concern about this growing problem. Although I have been aware of the problem of trafficking, it was not until I attended the Third Euro-Mediterranean Forum of Women Parliamentarians last year in Madrid—at which I was accompanied by the noble Baronesses, Lady Elles and Lady Thomas—that I realised what a global predicament it is. The law needs to be strengthened, and there are moves in that direction.
	In November 2002, Bob Ainsworth MP, the Home Office Minister, said:
	"Forming an accurate estimate of levels of trafficking in people is problematic due to the hidden nature of the act. There is currently no accurate, reliable data in existence within the United Kingdom or the European Union. A Home Office research study 'Stopping Traffic' published in 2000, indicated that the number of women and children trafficked into the United Kingdom for the purposes of sexual exploitation, was likely to be in the range of 140 to 1,400 per year".—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/02; col. 130W.]
	But it is not only in sexual exploitation where trafficking occurs. An article on trafficking in the Observer in May of this year stated,
	"Children are being trafficked into domestic service in Britain to clean houses and do chores without pay. The victims are mostly West African girls lured on the promise of a western education only to find themselves forced to do heavy chores for wealthy families . . . Ministers will now act to close a loophole identified by the UN children's charity UNICEF which is preparing a major study of child trafficking to be published this summer".
	The Government's consultation document, published in February 2002, entitled Secure Borders, Safe Havens, states that,
	"Trafficking for labour exploitation not only penalises the direct victim but also works against the competitiveness of decent employers who comply with employment law. We will strengthen our means of tackling this problem by introducing legislation which will make trafficking of people for the purposes of labour exploitation a specific criminal offence".
	In response to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—I am looking forward to hearing his speech later tonight—asking whether the Government will publish a Bill in draft form criminalising trafficking in people for the purposes of exploitation, other than sexual, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said,
	"The Government has promised to introduce legislation on trafficking for both labour and sexual exploitation. Offences of trafficking for sexual exploitation are contained in the Sexual Offences Bill.
	"Legislation covering trafficking for the purpose of labour exploitation will be introduced when parliamentary time permits".
	Can the Minister say whether the Government have made further progress on this matter?
	This topic is now high on the agenda of matters of great concern. Rarely a week goes by when there is not a new item or a radio or television article about the exploitation of people. Highlighting these issues; drawing the attention of Members of Parliament and Government makes us all much more conscious of the need to take action.
	There are horrendous stories of what happens to women and children when they are the victims of trafficking. Perhaps I may give two examples. One appeared in the Independent last month. The headline was "Eight children destined for the sex trade". The article states,
	"Eight African children have been taken into care by social workers who believed they were destined for the British sex industry. Child protection agencies have become increasingly concerned that children from African countries are being brought into the country to work as domestic slaves or prostitutes".
	Wendy Shepherd, who runs the project Sexually Exploited Children on the Streets, said,
	"These children are being used as sex slaves. It is sexual abuse, and they are having their freedom taken away . . . it is a wide ranging problem and these children are being used like a commodity. Those men who use them for child sex must be apprehended".
	Another example in the Guardian in March of this year has the headline "Sex in Soho". It states that,
	"increasingly, coercion, human trafficking and violence dominate the UK sex industry. This domestic human rights issue fails to arouse crusading zeal. Women in the sex trade however unwillingly they arrived there, don't attract any high-minded concern".
	But I do not believe that that is the case in your Lordships' House. I am sure that the Minister will refute that allegation. It is of grave concern. I have looked through what has taken place in this House in the past few years. The subject has been raised on many occasions.
	The journalist goes on to say:
	"Many are kept captive, having been tricked, or even abducted and sexually brutalised. Police say women trafficked for this purpose are now a 'predominant feature' of Soho's off-street trade. Stories surfacing from these women are barely credible in 21st century Britain . . . Last year 'Natasha' gave evidence against a pimp. She was aged 15 and had been forced to have sex with customers for 20 hours a day"—
	which is absolutely horrendous—
	"earning her 'owner' £500 a day. She had come from a broken and impoverished home in Romania, been tempted by offers of a better life, and ended up trafficked, via the Balkans, to sex slavery in London".
	Simon Humphreys, head of Scotland Yard's vice squad, said:
	"This is a shocking subjugation of human rights, akin to slavery".
	Anti-Slavery International says:
	"Human trafficking for the sex industry is not the same as pimping, nor is it the same as people smuggling. This is enslavement, subjugation; people kept in captivity, and abused in extreme ways".
	Some of those activities are going on literally only a short distance from Parliament. Many noble Lords speaking tonight will have much greater knowledge and experience on this topic than I. I look forward to their contributions and also to what the Minister has to report on the Government's progress.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, we have discussed the menace of people-trafficking on a number of occasions. Most recently the subject came up in the debate on the report last month on Europol of Sub-Committee F, chaired by my noble friend Lady Harris of Richmond. The Minister who replied said that an effective system of co-operation throughout Europe was essential in the fight against trans-national crime including people-trafficking, and that the UK has played a leading role in supporting Europol with resources and intelligence. What he did not say, however, was whether the Government think that Europe is getting to grips with the huge business of people smuggling, said to be worth an annual £8 billion throughout the world.
	A story in the Observer last Sunday referred to the conviction in Holland of "Sister Ping", whose organisation is said to have been responsible for smuggling 200,000 Chinese into Europe, and was also alleged to have been involved in the deaths of 56 people who were found asphyxiated in a lorry at Dover two years ago. They say that although the woman is now behind bars, the business continues, and that employers in East Anglia are paying trafficked workers £2 per hour.
	When that is happening on such a scale, and as blatantly as is alleged by the Observer, it should not be too difficult for the police and the immigration authorities to pick up the migrants themselves, but getting the bosses is another matter. Does the Minister say to the House that the police have adequate resources to tackle such crime and, in particular, do they have proper resources to deal with the Chinese community, including Chinese language speakers?
	Neither China nor the UK has signed the Migrant Workers Convention, which came into force on 1st July. Can the Minister say what our objections to it are? Is it that we consider our existing legislation adequate to protect migrant workers from exploitation, although it may not always be well enough enforced? In occupations such as seasonal agriculture, and the hotel and catering industry, it is possible even for workers recruited in less affluent EU countries such as Portugal to face abuse and exploitation.
	The Ethical Trading Initiative is co-ordinating a working group of stakeholders including Defra and the Home Office to look at the feasibility of a licensing and registration scheme for the gangmasters who recruit foreign labour for the food and agriculture industry. Could the Minister give us a progress report on that work, and tell us whether Ministers think that a statutory or voluntary scheme will be needed?
	I turn to the appalling phenomenon of the trafficking of women and children for sexual exploitation. The US State Department produces an annual trafficking in persons report, assessing the efforts that countries are making to stop the business, and threatening withdrawal of US aid from those that are doing nothing. But some of them are already pariahs. Burma, for example, whose Government use forced labour internally, is a source country for women and girls forced into prostitution in the neighbouring countries. Some traffickers have been prosecuted, but corruption is a huge problem and many officials at local and regional level are suspected of turning a blind eye.
	Clearly the UK does not have the resources to conduct a comprehensive survey of its own on what is happening in the source countries. But if we collaborate with others in the EU, we should be able to make joint assessments—trying to add to the information already collected by the State Department, rather than simply duplicating it. That would be a useful area of co-operation between Europe and the US which the Government might consider. In addition, Europe might pick up and resolve some of the criticisms identified by Human Rights Watch: that the State Department gives undue credit for minimal efforts, and that it ignores government practices, such as summary deportation and incarceration of the victims.
	Much has been said in previous debates about the difficulty of persuading trafficked women to give evidence against the people who run this evil business. That may be an insuperable obstacle to prosecutions so long as the victims have no security. That matter was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. Such women may feel that, as illegal entrants, they will be shipped back immediately to their country of origin if they come forward. Therefore, it is important that, if they seek protection from the authorities as victims of exploitation, they are given a period of grace to recover from the experience. The noble Baroness mentioned the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy as examples of countries which have such mechanisms. It would be useful to know from the Minister whether we have studied the procedures in those countries. And what is the view of the Government about working towards a uniform set of rules for the treatment of women victims throughout the EU?
	I know that it has been suggested by some EU governments that grace periods would lead to false claims being made by women who were trying to get around immigration controls. In the three countries mentioned, that has not happened. Mention has been made of a draft EU directive on short-term residence permits, providing a very modest level of support for trafficking victims. However, I understand that thus far member states have not been able to agree to that. I should be grateful if the Minister could say whether Britain is one of the objectors and, if so, why.
	On the sordid and unbelievable offence of trafficking in children, there is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, said, much anecdotal evidence. She mentioned the particularly nasty story about the eight African children who were taken into care by social workers in Newcastle after they were discovered and were feared to be destined for sexual exploitation.
	As has been mentioned, UNICEF says that children are also being brought to Europe for use as domestic drudges. The Climbie inquiry was told that entrusting children to relatives living in Europe who can offer financial and educational opportunities unavailable in the Ivory Coast—and presumably in other West African countries—was not uncommon. But, although the terms of reference of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, were,
	"to establish the circumstances leading to and surrounding the death of Victoria Climbie",
	he did not look at the risk to children of being brought here for exploitation. Have any fresh instructions been given to immigration officers on how to verify claimed relationships when returning residents bring previously unknown children with them? What are the arrangements for persons granted leave to remain here to declare any children in advance in their home countries? And what are the rules for dealing with unaccompanied children who are met at the airport by persons claiming to be their relatives?
	Both noble Baronesses mentioned the epic study by Anti-Slavery International, published last year, which made no fewer than 45 recommendations for combating people-trafficking. Your Lordships have made it clear on many occasions that they support the recommendations and that they want a more vigorous attitude from the Government. I hope that this debate will help to convince the Government that we should act promptly to stamp out the disgusting business of people-trafficking.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I give my warm thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for inviting me to join this debate. I declare an interest as a council member of Anti-Slavery International, and I firmly support what the noble Baroness said.
	My purpose in entering the debate is to draw attention to the continuing plight of the victims of trafficking, even after they have been identified. I also want to point out the inadequacy of the Government's present policies and the wide disparity between promises and practice. While governments such as ours now genuinely recognise the problem of trafficking and are going well beyond the signing of UN protocols, they do not in most cases accept the necessity for national legislation to guarantee the safety and protection of those victims. Worse, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, some European governments are allowing asylum considerations to override international law and natural justice.
	I shall resist the temptation to describe the causes of trafficking; namely, the poverty that drives so many victims and even their families into the arms of criminals. Our own Department for International Development is attempting to address those causes. In Asia, for example, it supports the International Labour Organisation in Laos, Thailand, China, Cambodia and Vietnam. In the Balkans, it has supported the International Organisation for Migration in training the various agencies dealing with trafficked people, including police officers, social workers and members of the legal profession. The training of professionals is the key to all that. ASI itself is active in capacity building and training in many countries, and more recently in developing advocacy at a European level. In March, it addressed a seminar in Paris organised by the Comite Contre l'Esclavage Moderne, attended by French officials, police and NGOs.
	I shall give just one example provided by ASI, which demonstrates the problem we have in Europe, although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, said, no one is really sure of its size. It is the case of a 17 year-old girl—I will call her Elena—who was abducted by a group of traffickers in Albania and kept in a flat for two months. During that time, she was beaten and raped. Another man came and made arrangements for her to go abroad with him. At the time, Elena thought that she had been rescued, but her new "boyfriend" was another trafficker who, once they were in the UK, forced her into prostitution. Whenever she tried to refuse, she was beaten. The money, of course, went to her trafficker.
	After about a year, Elena was picked up in a police raid. She had been told to say nothing to the police, and she was worried about getting her family into trouble. She was held at Heathrow for two days while immigration officers arranged to have her sent back to Albania. No arrangements were made for her to be seen by an NGO either in the UK or after she arrived back in Albania.
	Elena went back to live with her family, but soon received threatening calls from the traffickers. Her family wanted her to go to the police, but she did not trust them. Concerned for herself and the safety of her family, she decided to let the gang take her back to the UK. A few months after she had been trafficked back to the UK for the second time, she managed to escape. She made an application to stay in the UK, but that was rejected by the Home Office. She has since won her appeal, which has also been challenged by the Home Office.
	Last month, ASI presented evidence to the UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. Based on a 10-country policy study, the report of that sub-commission showed that, due to the failure of governments to take appropriate action, many trafficked people continue to suffer human rights abuses even after they escape from their traffickers.
	The forms of assistance are spelled out in Articles 6 and 7 of the United Nations Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children (2000), which has been signed by 117 nations. They include residency status, housing, information and counselling, medical and legal assistance, and employment and training opportunities. They also cover areas of witness protection.
	Under international law, as has been said, victims of crime such as trafficking require and deserve a period of initial protection and support. Many are forced into it. It is not their fault that they have crossed an international frontier illegally. In ASI's view, there must be a period of at least three months of reflection to allow for proper investigation.
	The provision of temporary residence permits beyond the reflection period is equally important in ensuring the protection of trafficked people's rights. However, ASI says:
	"In most cases access to the residency permit is made conditional on co-operation in criminal investigations against traffickers"—
	already mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—
	"and is not available on the basis of serious harm suffered or the risk of harm upon removal".
	That is a terrible indictment of our legal system and it shows what a contradiction there can be between criminal law and our interpretation of the law on human rights.
	The EU Council framework decision on combating trafficking in human beings obliges all EU states to harmonise their domestic criminal legislation on trafficking by 2004, including adopting a common definition consistent with the protocol and establishing minimum penalties for trafficking. However, while the EU recognises that such harmonised definitions and penalties are essential in combating trafficking, it has not yet accepted that high standards of support and protection for victims are equally important.
	In Italy the definition is broader, as has been mentioned. Under the Italian system residency permits are provided on the basis that a victim of severe exploitation is in danger as a result of an escape or because that person is co-operating in criminal proceedings. There is also some provision for employment for victims who stay in Italy. The Italian model is not comprehensive, but it does at least recognise that such support should not be conditional on co-operation in prosecutions. That approach apparently has the full support of prosecutors and has helped to ensure greater co-operation with the authorities in Italy because victims feel more secure.
	Perhaps the Minister could confirm that this model is being seriously studied and emulated in the Home Office. There is no evidence that any victims of trafficking are seeking to evade asylum laws. There is, on the contrary, a clear link in ASI's view between the provision of services to victims and the securing of convictions of traffickers. That is a very important point. I submit that a greater emphasis on protection, as intended by the UN protocol but not yet legally binding, would appeal to many European governments in their search for the perpetrators of these appalling crimes.

Baroness Goudie: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for initiating this debate. I am pleased that in January of this year the Government introduced into the House of Lords the Sexual Offences Bill, which includes legislation to strengthen offences to deal with sexual exploitation. In addition to the new offences relating to sexual exploitation of children, there will be new offences relating to the sexual exploitation of adults and a new offence of trafficking people for sexual exploitation.
	Children are frequently victims of trafficking for the sex trade. Many people will automatically associate that trade with the sexual exploitation of girls but too frequently it also affects boys. We as a civilised society should be determined to end this appalling way of life for all vulnerable children in the UK and throughout the world. I congratulate the Government on working with non-governmental organisations, including Anti-Slavery International, as well as law enforcement agencies, which look at ways of delivering support for victims.
	I have worked very closely with Vital Voices founded by Senator Hilary Clinton and directed by Melanne Veveer. Vital Voices has been running programmes since 2002 in countries all over the world where women are vulnerable to such treatment. I welcome the Home Office's new pilot scheme with housing, which will offer support, counselling and assistance to women, in particular to those who are willing to co-operate with the police in order to track down the traffickers and they will not be in fear of being deported. There is a need for those who know about victims to speak out, confident in the knowledge that this will not lead to further victimisation of victims.
	We should ask ourselves why, in 2003, trafficking remains a global problem, embedded in a web of poverty, conflict, population displacement, political transition, inadequate female education and economic opportunity and the low value placed on women and children. The criminal nature of this human trade makes it difficult to obtain accurate statistics on trafficking and therefore we cannot know the true extent of the phenomenon. However, it is estimated that each year world-wide 4 million women, children and men are trafficked into modern forms of slavery. The purposes for trafficking include not only prostitution, debt bondage, and domestic labour but also the trafficking of children as slave labourers, child soldiers, camel jockeys and sex slaves. The United Nations protocol on trafficking in persons, adopted in November 2002 now has 105 signatories including the United Kingdom. The protocol defines trafficking as,
	"the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud or deception of the abuse of power or of vulnerability or the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude and the removal of organs".
	This protocol represents a new approach in international law to trafficking. It serves as a legal framework for national legislation, setting standards on criminal characterisation of conduct constituting crime of trafficking and the severity of punishment, providing much needed benchmarks on anti-trafficking—preventive policies and effective human rights measures to protect the victims. I ask the Government not only to do all they can to stamp out the appalling trade in this country, but to keep it high on the international agenda. Trafficking is not only an abuse of human rights; it is an affront to all humanity.

Lord Hylton: My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for the way in which she has introduced this short debate. I shall concentrate on what happens in this country to children and young people who arrive unaccompanied, some of whom have been purposely trafficked.
	We all know that responsibility for children generally has been transferred from the Home Office, first to the Department of Health and most recently to the Department for Education and Skills. Whatever the bureaucratic turbulence that this may have created, I emphasise that the interests of the child must still be paramount and the protection required by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child must be given as a national obligation. Therefore I ask the noble Lord who is to reply for an assurance that the extra costs of caring for incoming unaccompanied children will be fully reflected in grants from central government to the responsible local authorities.
	Regarding the arrangements at Gatwick Airport, I welcome the good level of co-operation that now exists between the Immigration Service, the police and social services. However, aftercare of identified children still gives grounds for concern. West Sussex social services takes all such children, but between 1995 and 2002 no fewer than 75 children were lost or disappeared—that is about 10 a year—and one has disappeared this year. Can the Government say whether any of the missing children have since been found? Are they thought to be in Britain or have they been smuggled overseas? Have any died or been killed? What information has been received from Interpol and Europol?
	Since 1999 West Sussex has been operating a safe house, providing only for six girls aged 16 to 18. Can the Government say whether that housing provision will continue? What provision is, or will be, available for boys and for other children aged under 16? West Sussex County Council have spoken of refocusing their services. What does that mean in practice?
	I welcome the presence of a police child protection officer at Heathrow Airport. Is it correct that a permanent police child protection unit will be set up? If so, will it be national, regional or what? What will be the terms of reference for any such unit?
	The London Borough of Hillingdon provides the childcare for all unaccompanied children coming to Heathrow. Have any such children been lost from that local authority? Are the Government satisfied with the Heathrow arrangements, or do they think that they can be further improved?
	As for the rest of the country, because of the improved arrangements existing for Gatwick and Heathrow, it is probable that traffickers of children are increasingly using other ports of entry. What are the Government doing about them? Training and teamwork are clearly needed for statutory and voluntary agencies. Will the Government make budgetary provision for such training? I understand that there is already evidence from police forces—for example, in Bristol and Nottingham—of some internal trafficking of British-born children. Is this under study, and will the Government require and make sure that effective counter measures are put in place?
	As to adults, can the noble Lord on the Front Bench give the House a report on the progress of the pilot scheme for safe houses in London for trafficked women, which has already been mentioned—that is, for women escaping from prostitution? It opened in March this year. Is it working well so far and is the degree of support and supervision provided seen to be sufficient? Can the noble Lord provide further details?
	On safety and protection, I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Sandwich. I agree also with the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. Do the Government now accept that both children and adults trafficked into this country need and deserve a period of quiet reflection, if possible for as long as six months, before they can be expected to decide whether to give information or evidence against traffickers and whether they wish to try to return to their country of origin or to some other country?
	Lastly, I agree again with the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, on the matter of labour exploitation. People, usually girls, trafficked for this purpose are likely to arrive as part of a family, or looking like part of a family. Skill and experience will therefore be needed to identify them on arrival. That may not always be possible, so their plight should be made widely known, and they should be given every possible opportunity, both to escape and to lodge complaints.

Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for raising the debate so soon after the March 2002 debate of the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
	This shows the urgency of dealing with this disgraceful practice. Since that debate the Government, I am pleased to say, have taken steps to bring forward many measures for dealing with this abomination. I shall not reiterate those measures here as they have been adequately dealt with by previous speakers.
	I shall confine myself to two issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and today referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, in her opening remarks, by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in his presentation and by other noble Lords as we have gone down the list. That is, the reflection period and the safe housing for those caught in this awful trap. Anti-Slavery International confirms that victims of trafficking need a breathing space or a reflection period in which they can receive assistance, recover from their traumatic experience and make an informed decision about whether they wish to co-operate with authorities in prosecuting the traffickers. This time to receive support and advice and consider their position is of fundamental importance, given the risk to their own lives and those of their families in the country of origin. The families of girls who have been trafficked into the UK have been threatened and attacked in Nigeria.
	However, the main problem we have in extending support to victims is the fact that the trafficked person will normally have irregular immigration status. They may have false documents, be an over-stayer with no passport and so forth. Irregular immigration status means that unless they immediately co-operate with the police, they will be subject to deportation. Similarly, other agencies that may have come into contact with victims will find it difficult to assist them if they are in this country illegally. The reflection period will regularise their status temporarily, giving them an opportunity to receive advice and assistance.
	This system will not interfere with a police investigation because if the police come into contact with a trafficked person who is immediately willing to co-operate they can debrief them, pursue their investigations and apply to the Home Office for the victim to have exceptional leave to remain. However, if the victim is unable to overcome their fear of the trafficker or their reluctance to talk about their experience—the vast majority will not be able to—they can still be given a reflection period and referred to an agency for support and assistance.
	This has a number of benefits. The trafficked person will receive advice and support services that should help them take back control of their lives and may help them to break out of the trafficking cycle. During the period of reflection, those offering support to that person will have time to win their confidence and be able to gather information regarding how victims were recruited, transported and coerced and whether other victims are being held. This information can be shared with the police which will allow them to gather evidence on traffickers, profile possible victims and disrupt the traffickers' network. In some cases, the trafficked person may then decide that they want to testify against the traffickers.
	Reflection periods already operate in other EU countries like the Netherlands and Belgium. The EU Council Directive on short-term residence permits currently under discussion proposes its introduction for all EU states. Anti-Slavery believes that the reflection period should last three months as in the case of the Dutch model. It is their experience that victims will often need this period of time to recover from their experiences, overcome their fears and begin to confide in those assisting them. The evidence from West Sussex—already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton—shows that children will need a longer period and that the reflection period for minors should be at least six months.
	All relevant agencies—the police, non-governmental organisations, immigration officers and local authorities—should be able to apply for reflection periods when they encounter someone they consider to be a victim of trafficking. It will ultimately be up to the Government to grant or refuse a reflection period but Anti-Slavery would recommend that the Government take their decision in consultation with an independent agency specialising in assisting victims of trafficking. In this way the reflection period will allow assistance and support to be made available to victims and facilitate the collection of invaluable information regarding the modus operandi of the trafficker which can be passed to the police. The alternative would be that we continue to deport all victims who cannot immediately overcome their fear of traffickers and co-operate with the police. That will effectively assist the traffickers who, in most cases, will be able to "re-traffic" their victims as soon as they are returned home.
	The long-term protection needs of victims—whether they need ELR or ILR because of the risk to them if returned to their country of origin—should be examined separately and should not be contingent on or linked to their co-operation with investigations or prosecutions of traffickers. This procedure will ensure that witness evidence or statements cannot be dismissed as being induced by offers of residency.
	Housing and employment are self-explanatory and have been touched on by other noble Lords. Many trafficked people will have undergone the trauma of family poverty. Most research supports the need for temporary residency permits beyond the reflection period and safe housing could provide that respite. The proposed EU Council directive states that it is not concerned with the protection of either witnesses or victims. This could prove to be very unsatisfactory and would need a degree of understanding in order to secure co-operation with the authorities.

Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, for introducing this debate. There is no political divide between the different parts of your Lordships' House. What is interesting is that when issues such as this are debated it reflects our civilised values and the way that we should be tackling such problems.
	The noble Baroness and all other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate reflect those decent values, but more than that, the Government are not the exception here: they have taken on board some of the issues rightly mentioned by the noble Baroness in terms of the provisions of the Sexual Offences Bill which, to a great extent, will seek to help this situation.
	But the problem that I often have to face when discussing issues of this nature is summed up in a simple question. Years ago the civilised world abolished slavery, only for it to be replaced by the lucrative trade of trafficking in people. It is the worst form of human exploitation and in most cases the people trapped into it are those who are already victims of poverty.
	The statistics world-wide are staggering and they vary from country to country. The US Government estimate that at least 700,000 people world-wide are trafficked each year. Home Office research undertaken in 2000 estimated that, in one year, between 142 and 1,420 women were trafficked into this country. Those are simply the recorded cases. No one is in a position to identify the true scale of the problem. Suffice it to say at this stage, however, that trafficking in people has replaced many other criminal activities designed for financial gain. I do not doubt that the figures for the United Kingdom could be much higher because the Home Office research is confined to reported cases. We just do not know the true scale of the problem.
	We have a common understanding of the problem and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie, who was good enough to identify what we mean when we refer to the UN Protocol. Its words strike a clear chord. Trafficking is:
	"The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of threat or use of force or other forms of coercion".
	But if we take the definition forward, we are talking about a form of exploitation that includes.
	"at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery . . . or the removal of organs".
	At this point I pose the question again: let us cast our minds back to the days of slavery. What is different today from what happened then?
	Much of the action taken to deal with trafficking has been reactive. Only recently has substantial evidence emerged about organised gangs exploiting every inch of human misery by trafficking people for, in this instance, the purposes of asylum. We have the sight of victims being caught on our shores. We know of cases of people who have died in refrigerated lorries and those who are transported in conditions in which we would be ashamed to transport animals. It is impossible to estimate how many victims have lost their lives in the process of being transported.
	An article that appeared in the Guardian in March 2003, entitled "Slaves in Soho" made an important point. My noble friend Lord Avebury spoke about this matter. The article said that the police are not set up to deal with people trafficking since it is a transnational industry and many of the girls come from backgrounds where there is suspicion of the police. The police are incapable of tackling its source, which is the disparity in wealth between the eastern European countries such as Moldova and western European countries. The article's other main point is that the sex industry in the Balkans has really taken off since the war there in 1999, due to the large number of troops and other workers operating in those countries.
	During the debates on immigration and asylum matters, we have drawn attention to the matter of young girls from third world countries disappearing from the care of social services. Several noble Lords have referred to these issues. However, we need specific answers. We need to know why it is that the girls disappear from the care of the social services. Was an investigation carried out? Where are they now, and where is the report on their welfare? The noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, has repeatedly raised this particular issue during the debates on immigration and asylum matters. The Minister should impress on social services in general, and in this particular case West Sussex county council, the need for them to be able to give us an answer. If some good practice could emerge in preventing such vile crime, all of us would be happier for that.
	My noble friend Lord Avebury highlighted some of the problems associated with prostitution. However, the Government tend to be more concerned with getting victims of trafficking to provide evidence against traffickers in order to secure prosecutions. The noble Baroness, Lady Howells was right when she said that many are afraid of the immigration authorities and police, which complicates the matter further, especially since traffickers sometimes use their victims' fear of the police and the authorities as the tools with which they threaten them. Many trafficked people, particularly women, have been told by their traffickers that there will be consequences not only for them in this country but for their relations back home. We need to be concerned about that.
	One idea mooted by Asylum Aid is something that the Government should seriously consider. It would be useful for the seizure of traffickers' assets to be used to develop safe accommodation for trafficked women. The international people-trafficking industry is the third largest international crime after trafficking in drugs and weapons. It is worth an estimated £4.3 billion per annum to criminals. The sex industry is currently worth over £12 million in the United Kingdom. Financial penalties for this crime would be a significant deterrent for human traffickers.
	A number of suggestions have been made in terms of giving space to victims so that they could provide evidence on the basis of which prosecutions could be brought. Those are good practices and we should take that on board. More importantly, we need to look at our immigration and asylum policy. We should regard trafficking as an offence to be prosecuted so as to give shelter to its victims.
	I admire very much the work of Anti-Slavery International. According to that organisation it is clear that many European countries, including the United Kingdom, fall short of the standards required to eradicate this vile trade in human beings.
	Perhaps I may pinpoint several issues that noble Lords have identified: the protection of trafficked people; as the noble Baroness, Lady Howells, mentioned, what sort of reflection period there should be; if that is possible and if not, why not? But, more importantly, how do we introduce legislation so that once and for all, we can stop the exploitation of such people? We can only put our hands on our hearts and say that we have abolished slavery when we give back dignity and respect to those who are victims of exploitation.

Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Elles for initiating this important debate, which she introduced with great clarity.
	When we are considering the subject of trafficking, the overwhelming proportion affects women and children. There is often a shadowy dividing line between the two. An example from Gatwick illustrates that. Young persons arriving at Gatwick will sometimes say that they are under 18 when they are clearly not in order, as it were, to work the Children Acts. On other occasions, they will say that they are over 18 when they clearly are not in order to avoid being taken to a safe house—an illustration of the skill with which victims are programmed by their traffickers.
	I hesitate to list the dangers to trafficked people in company as distinguished as this House, but there is no better summary than that to be found in the 2002 National Criminal Intelligence Service UK threat assessment. It highlights a number key points:
	"Violence is not the traffickers' only weapon. They also exploit economic, social and cultural vulnerabilities . . . Traffickers control their victims by removing identity documents . . . Women who are trafficked are often unaware of the nature of their situation until they arrive . . . The women will not have the financial means to escape their abusers".
	My noble friend's Question is especially timely, coming, as it does, shortly after the Sexual Offences Bill has left your Lordships' House for consideration in another place. The Bill creates new offences for trafficking respectively into, within and out of the United Kingdom, each carrying substantial maximum prison sentences.
	The abuses to which children can be subjected are, sadly, well known. They include all forms of physical and sexual coercion and frequently make the child a drug addict—all to keep the child terrified and under control. The relationship between trafficker and child varies in each case: some are induced to believe that the trafficker is to be their boy friend; others are tied through debt bondage; and children from west Africa are often under the impression that a voodoo spell has been placed on them and that great harm will come to them and their family if they step out of line.
	The NCIS report also points out that exploitation of illegal immigrants by organised crime groups does not necessarily stop at bonded or tied labour. It cites incidences involving Chinese and Albanian organisations, in particular, where victims have been kidnapped on arrival in the UK and money extorted from the immigrants' relatives or the immigrants themselves and, in the case of the Chinese, even the hijacking of whole shipments of migrants by a competitor with the usual extortion demands. Then there is the exploitation of immigrants in the commission of various types of low-level crime, such as aggressive begging, pickpocketing and, of course, the all too familiar use of illegal immigrants, especially from the Caribbean, as drug couriers.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to the work done by West Sussex County Council. I, too, am informed that that programme is being restructured. One problem is that it is having difficulty filling its safe houses. Most occupants have been from West Africa. Sadly, that is probably not due to a fall-off in illegal immigrants from West Africa; it is much more likely, as the noble Lord said, that Gatwick and Heathrow are now perceived as difficult ports of entry for the trafficking industry and it is increasingly turning its attention to softer targets or using methods of entry that do not bring them to the attention of immigration authorities at all.
	However, West Sussex has gained valuable experience and I hope that that can be shared with other centres where there is now a problem. My noble friend mentioned Edinburgh and Glasgow, but Newcastle and Nottingham have also recently been in the news.
	I echo my noble friend Lady Elles's tribute to the work being done by the Eaves Project in the provision of hostel accommodation for women at risk. I know she has some questions for the Minister on that.
	I, like many noble Lords who have spoken, would like to see a greater period of reflection for children at risk. All too often the child is sent back too soon—some cynics would say as soon as the child has provided any necessary intelligence. We have all been shocked by the appalling story of Elena, which the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, has told us about based on his experience with ASI.
	Evidence from West Sussex social services has shown that the children need this reflection for at least six months. They have found that children who suffer abuse and trauma disclose their experience only after months and years rather than days and weeks.
	The experience of Italy has been mentioned by many noble Lords. I echo the wish that the Minister will assure the House that the Italian experience is being studied. It is that many victims become more willing to testify against their trafficker towards the end of the six-month period as they work through counselling and begin to recover. This happens irrespective of whether they are involved in the prosecution. The small number of residents' permits issued also refutes concerns that such a system would open the doors to a flood of applications.
	In conclusion, there are two points I would make to the Minister. Can he give an assurance that the Home Office will give a lead in ensuring that the valuable experience gained by those in the frontline in West Sussex is disseminated as widely as possible to those authorities for which the problem is relatively new and where, in some cases, we are told that other forces are turning a blind eye on account of alleged priorities?
	Is the Minister able to assure the House that arrangements are in place to tackle the problem at source by establishing the closest intelligence links possible in the countries where trafficking originates. This would include having a deep understanding of the culture. Let it not be forgotten that west Africa has a tradition of slavery and bondage going back many centuries, indeed, well before the commencement of the slave trade to the New World. An understanding of current practice, which can only come from an extended and substantial presence in the countries concerned, will do much to enable and encourage the authorities in the United Kingdom, who do such excellent work in this field in so many ways, to keep abreast of this huge, sinister, but hugely resourceful, practice. It is a practice which more often than not is rooted in cultures very different from our own. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's reply.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I want to put on record my profound agreement with an expression used by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, at the beginning of his comments. He said that this had been a most distinguished debate—distinguished by all its participants. I absolutely agree with that and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, on putting this matter before the House in the way in which she has.
	I have been privileged to listen to and participate in a number of these debates—at Question Time, on Unstarred Questions, and during the passage of legislation. I am grateful to noble Lords for their concern on this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, made the point that politics does not divide us on this issue. There is a shared commitment and a shared concern.
	Trafficking in people is an appalling business. It is an appalling form of exploitation with a harmful, debilitating and demeaning impact on the lives of individuals, families, communities, countries and generations. To set it in the context of slavery and the history of slavery is right and proper.
	I also want to put on record my firm conviction that this Government have perhaps done more than any other government in recent years to tackle this problem. It is not an easy problem and certainly the solutions are not easily found. Through the White Paper Secure Borders Safe Haven the Government set out a clear four-pronged approach—legislation, enforcement, international co-operation, prevention at source and provision for victims.
	Let me deal, first, with an issue of terminology. There is a clear internationally agreed distinction between trafficking and smuggling which is expressed in the United Nations Trans-national Organised Crime Convention. According to the UN Protocol on Prevention and Suppression of Trafficking, trafficking in people involves ongoing exploitation—be it labour exploitation or sexual exploitation. It is important to distinguish between trafficking and smuggling but also to recognise that boundaries between the two are not clear-cut. While legally we can make a clear distinction, operationally we have to recognise that the criminals involved in trafficking and smuggling are often interchangeable.
	The scale of smuggling is becoming clearer, with an estimated 75 per cent of those arriving in the United Kingdom to claim asylum having been facilitated by criminal groups. But trafficking is a much more elusive problem to pin down. The noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Dholakia, referred to the Home Office research contained in Stopping Traffic, published some three years ago, which estimated that anywhere between 140 and 1,400 women were trafficked to the UK every year for the purposes of sexual exploitation. It is an obvious point, but that is a very wide range of estimation. Who knows? But that is the scale.
	Despite its hidden nature, trafficking is now recognised as a serious organised criminal activity on an international scale. The United Kingdom Government, in common with many other governments, have announced our determination to crack down on this evil trade. Our approach is consistent with the UN Protocol on Prevention and Suppression of Trafficking, which is the cornerstone of effective international action against it. It recognises that trafficking requires a multi-faceted response, combining elements of legislation to criminalise the activity, effective enforcement and international co- operation to tackle its trans-national nature and to provide for victims.
	A number of noble Lords have paid tribute to the Government for taking tough action, particularly through legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, congratulated us on that and the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, echoed her congratulations. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred to our work, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie.
	However, the lack of trafficking legislation was cited as a stumbling block to encouraging proactive police investigations. In response to this, the Nationality Immigration and Asylum Act was introduced and a new criminal offence of trafficking for control over prostitution, with a maximum penalty of 14 years—which is on a par with the penalties for drug trafficking—was introduced. A new offence as a stopgap measure to close an existing loophole was also introduced. The Sexual Offences Bill introduces more wide-ranging offences of trafficking for sexual exploitation. Work is also under way on offences for trafficking for labour exploitation, a point raised by a number of noble Lords, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Goudie.
	These measures take into account the UK's international obligations under the UN Trafficking Protocol. We intend to ensure that our Government, in common with other EU member states, will implement by July 2004 the EU Framework Decision which has been recently adopted. That is very good progress indeed.
	It is estimated that the profits from people trafficking are equal to those from drug trafficking and the effect on the lives of those involved can be just as damaging. The UN lists it as one of the three most lucrative types of organised criminal activity, alongside drugs and firearms.
	Recognising this, the Proceeds of Crime Act has been brought in line with the new trafficking offences and so provides powers to seize and confiscate the criminal assets of those involved in this appalling crime. Together these provisions will provide another way of dismantling and disrupting traffickers.
	The key issue will be enforcement. We need to tackle the criminality that is allowing the trade to continue. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, referred to the National Criminal Intelligence Service and its vital and valuable work. Trafficking affects communities throughout the United Kingdom, so exercises such as Reflex bring together the key agencies including the Immigration Service, the NCIS and police forces most affected, such as the Metropolitan Police, the Kent Constabulary and the British Transport Police. The Reflex project aims to build up the intelligence picture, co-ordinate operations and provide a focal point for the operational response to human trafficking and smuggling.
	During the current financial year there have been eight disruptive operational campaigns and 150 operational new developments. In 2002–03, Reflex exceeded its targets with 16 organised crime groups disrupted or dismantled.
	Joint working is the key to good enforcement and good practice. A more recent scheme has been the introduction of the child protection pilot based at Heathrow, which is another joint project, this time between the Immigration Service and the Metropolitan Police. Operation Maxim is a new initiative targeting organised criminals who are in the UK illegally. It was launched by the Metropolitan Police and the Immigration Service in April, under the Reflex banner. It is an ongoing series of operations targeting criminals in a whole range of illegal activities including identity theft and human trafficking.
	Several noble Lords referred to the importance of international co-operation and crime prevention. I wish to put on record our commitment to that. We will ensure that work in those countries where the problem is being exported to the United Kingdom proceeds at a pace through our network of immigration liaison officers and is entirely in line with the work outlined in the EU framework decision.
	Our overseas network has been enhanced with liaison officers based at Europol and with joint working teams in key transit countries such as Bosnia and Romania. We intend to expand on those.
	I would like to talk about protection and support, but I can probably best achieve that by turning to some of the questions asked by noble Lords. There were many questions and I am appreciative of the advance information that was given to me about them. I know that in the time allowed I will not be able to respond to all of them, but I will ensure that the responses that have been prepared will be circulated to all noble Lords who have participated in this evening's debate.
	Particular attention focused on the work that the West Sussex social services department has had to undertake because of the problems of having Gatwick within its boundary. It is correct that between 1995 and 2002, 71 children, who had arrived on their own at Gatwick claiming asylum, disappeared from West Sussex social services. Thankfully, only three children have been recorded as missing in the current year. We should emphasise that the majority of children that are missing from care in the UK will have decided to leave for various reasons. They would probably not want to return to their country of origin on their 18th birthday and perhaps have found work elsewhere or moved to another area. The majority of those children are not suspected of having been trafficked.
	It is also important to note that social services departments do not have the power to prevent a minor from leaving their care. That is an interesting observation that raises many difficult issues for social services and I am sure that noble Lords will be mindful of it. It is up to social services to decide how best to provide support services for children in need in their area, including accommodation for children who are the victims of trafficking. Although there is no current specific ear-marked funding for such services, we allocate funding for councils with specific social services responsibilities on the basis of the need of their population. A weighted capitation formula is used to determine that need. Obviously, it reflects the pressure on those services of particular problems such as this one.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Elles, asked a specific and useful question about the number of victims who had come forward through Eaves Housing. I can advise her that some 29 have been received by Eaves Housing and are receiving services through that organisation.
	Many other questions were asked in the debate. I wanted to try to respond to one or two but I do not think there is sufficient time. However, as I said, I shall respond to those very specific questions. I respect entirely the wish for additional information which many noble Lords expressed. Under cover of letter, I shall ensure that all those points are covered.
	This has been an important debate which has focused on the key and crucial issues. I am most grateful to all noble Lords who participated. This debate will need to continue. We need to do the maximum possible to prevent this appalling international trade and to counter it in every way possible.

Nottingham City Council Bill [HL]

Bill returned earlier from the Commons agreed to.

Mental Incapacity

A message was brought from the Commons that they concur with the resolution of this House of 13th June relating to a Joint Committee to consider any draft Mental Incapacity Bill and that they have made the following orders:
	That a Select Committee of eight Members be appointed to join with any committee appointed by the Lords to consider any such draft Mental Incapacity Bill.
	That the committee shall have power—
	(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
	(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	(iii) to report form time to time;
	(iv) to appoint specialist advisers; and
	(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.

Civil Contingencies

A message was brought from the Commons that they concur with the resolution of this House of 13th June relating to a Joint Committee to consider any draft Civil Contingencies Bill and that they have made the following orders:
	That a Select Committee of 11 Members be appointed to join with any committee appointed by the Lords to consider any such draft Civil Contingencies Bill.
	That the committee shall have power—
	(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
	(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	(iii) to report form time to time;
	(iv) to appoint specialist advisers; and
	(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.

Gambling

A message was brought from the Commons that they concur with the resolution of this House of 2nd July relating to a Joint Committee to consider any draft Gambling Bill and that they have made the following orders:
	That a Select Committee of eight Members be appointed to join with any committee appointed by the Lords to consider any such draft Gambling Bill.
	That the committee shall have power—
	(i) to send for persons, papers and records;
	(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
	(iii) to report form time to time;
	(iv) to appoint specialist advisers; and
	(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom.
	House adjourned at one minute past nine o'clock.